The court held that damages for medical negligence must be compensatory, reflecting the severity of injuries and loss of quality of life, without punitive intent.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Wahab Mohamed J:

Introduction

[1] The matter before this Court concerns a claim brought by the 1st Plaintiff, a minor, through his lawful father and litigation representative, Abdillah bin Ariffin, alongside the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, who are the lawful parents of the 1st Plaintiff.

[2] The Defendants are medical officers and specialists employed by the 1st Defendant, the Government of Malaysia, and are attached to Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun in Ipoh and Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

[3] The Plaintiffs allege negligence on the part of the Defendants in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of the 1st Plaintiff following a motor vehicle accident on 5 January 2019. This alleged negligence led to severe medical complications, culminating in the amputation of the 1st Plaintiffs right leg above the knee.

[4] The Plaintiffs seek damages under several heads, including special and general damages, on the basis that the Defendants' actions fell below the standard of care expected in the circumstances, thereby causing unnecessary suffering and financial loss to the 1st Plaintiff.

Background Facts

[5] The 1st Plaintiff, being a minor at the time of incident, institutes this action through his lawful father and litigation representative, Abdillah bin Ariffin. The 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, who are the lawful father and lawful mother of the 1st Plaintiff, join in this action, seeking damages arising from the alleged negligence.

[6] The Defendants, being medical officers and specialists, are employed by the 1st Defendant, the Government of Malaysia, and are attached to the 9th Defendant, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun ("HRPB"), Ipoh, and the 21st Defendant, Hospital Kuala Lumpur ("HKL"), respectively.

[7] On or about 5 January 2019 at approximately 3.35 pm, the 1st Plaintiff was promptly brought by ambulance to the Emergency and Trauma Department of HRPB, following a motor vehicle accident wherein the Plaintiffs motorbike allegedly skidded and fell, causing injury to his right knee.

[8] The initial diagnosis was a closed right supracondylar femur fracture. The 1st Plaintiff was subsequently referred to the Orthopaedic team for further management. Between 7.00 to 8.00 pm, a diagnosis of a right supracondylar femur fracture with anterior displacement was confirmed.The 1st Plaintiff then underwent a Closed Manual Reduction (CMR) and Skin Traction procedure over the right knee at approximately 8.20 pm A CT-Angio (CTA) was ordered at around 10.00 pm and performed at 11.28 pm, revealing an abrupt cutoff of the distal right femoral artery before it entered the popliteal fossa.

[9] On 6 January 2019 at approximately 2.00 am the 1st Plaintiff was referred to the Vascular Department of HKL. However, the ambulance from HRPB was only made available at around 3.30 am, resulting in the 1st Plaintiff arriving at HKL at approximately 6.45 am The Vascular Department diagnosed the 1st Plaintiff with Grade 3 right lower limb Ischaemia secondary to a right popliteal artery injury. A right lower limb fasciotomy and vascular bypass surgery were performed on the same day. However, on the 7 January 2019, at around 6.00 pm, a right above-knee amputation (AKA) was carried out, as the right lower limb's viability was questionable. On 10 January 2019 at approximately 2.30 pm, the 1st Plaintiff was transferred back to HRPB.

[10] The parties had, on 12 October 2022, entered into a Consent Judgment, wherein the 1st Defendant admitted liability, with damages and costs to be assessed by the Court .

[11] The Plaintiffs contend that there was a significant delay, nearly two years, on the part of the Defendants in admitting liability.

[12] The Plaintiffs have claimed the following damages:

Special Damages

General Damages

Costs Of This Action

The Plaintiffs claimed the total award sum of RM350,000.00 for the costs of this action.

Findings Of This Court

Special Damages

[13] The pivotal issue before this Honourable Court is the determination of the quantum of damages to be awarde