SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 2182

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LAI PING ALIAS LAI WAI PING – Appellant
Versus
DR LIM TYE LING & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: S6-22-252-2008]



In medical negligence, a practitioner is not liable if acting in accordance with accepted medical practice and not deviating from reasonable care standards, even with adverse outcomes.

Headnote:(A) Medical negligence law - Duty of care - The plaintiff, blinded due to alleged negligent treatment for endogenous klebsiella endophthalmitis by the second defendant - Plaintiff argued inadequate treatment and delay in management from 16 July to 24 July 2006; defendant contended treatment was appropriate given the plaintiff's critical condition and absence of specialist referral duty - No breach established. (Paras 1, 14, 30, 43, 61)

(B) Intravitreal injections - Administration of injections on 19 July 2006 not proven by medical records, but corroborated by other evidence; the court accepted defendant’s evidence that they were given - Delay not negligent due to risks involved as established by expert testimony. (Paras 15-22, 39-41, 46)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, aged 65, alleges negligence by a consultant ophthalmologist leading to blindness after treatment for an aggressive ocular infection. Following an initial hospitalization and treatment progression, she ultimately discharged herself and sought additional care at another facility.

Findings of Court:
The court finds the second defendant's treatment consistent with accepted standards in ophthalmology for managing endogenous endophthalmitis, concluding no breach of duty or proximate cause linking treatment to plaintiff's blindness.

Issues: 1) Whether the second defendant effectively administered intravitreal injections; 2) Whether the defendant's failure to refer the plaintiff constituted a breach of duty; 3) Whether treatment met accepted standards; 4) Causation of blindness; 5) Defense of novus actus interveniens regarding subsequent treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the second defendant did not breach the requisite standard of care and established no direct causation between alleged negligence and the plaintiff's resulting condition, supported by the principle from Bolam v. Friern Management Committee.

Result: Claim dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's medical negligence claim introduction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. chronological events leading to plaintiff's condition. (Para 3)
3. plaintiff's allegations of negligence. (Para 6 , 7)
4. defendant's rebuttal and focus on life preservation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. nature and impact of endogenous endophthalmitis. (Para 12)
6. key issues for court determination. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. defendant's professional duty and standard of care. (Para 24 , 26 , 29)
8. established standard of care in medical negligence. (Para 30 , 31 , 33)
9. role of expert medical opinion in treatment. (Para 34 , 38)
10. assessment of negligence based on consensus. (Para 41)
11. defendant's treatment aligns with recognized practices. (Para 46)
12. conclusions on causation and subsequent treatments. (Para 55 , 57 , 60)
SM Komathy Suppiah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an action for medical negligence by the plaintiff, aged 65 years against one Dr Ching Wing Seng, the 2nd Defendant, a Consultant Ophthalmologist who was the doctor who attended to and treated the Plaintiff who was diagnosed with a condition described as endogenous klebsiella endophthalmitis. This infection is said to be caused by the klebsiella pneumonia bacteria, a virulent and aggressive organism which invades the victim's liver, blood and eyes. The Plaintiff alleges that due to the in adequte treatment she received, she is now blind in both eyes. She holds the 2nd Defendant responsible for her loss of vision with due to his management in the care and treatment of her eyes between 16 July 2006 to 24 July 2006.

[2] In the midst of the trial, the Plaintiff on 11 October 2013 discontinued the action against the 1st Defendant, Consultant Physician Dr Lim Tye Ling, with no order as to costs, and recorded consent judgment with the 3rd Defendant Pantai Cheras Medical Centre Sdn Bhd. Pursuant to the terms of the consent judgment, the 3rd Defendant was to pay sum of RM15,000.00 gratis to the Plaintiff on a without admission of liability basis.

Chronology Of Events

[3] The following is a summary of the chronology of events underlying the dispute:-

(a) Since 12 July 2006, the Plaintiff was experiencing fever and despite consuming medicine prescribed from a clinic, her temperature had not improved.

(b) On 15 July 2006, the Plaintiff sought medical attention at Accident & Emergency Department of Pantai Cheras Medical Centre. After being attended to by the medical officer, the Plaintiff was admitted into the ward under the care of the Consultant Physician Dr Lim Tye Ling. She complained of fever, nausea, bodyache, backache, lethargy and flatulence for 3 days prior to admission. Her platelet count was found to be 65,000:-

(i) A provisional diagnosis of viral or bacterial infection possibly involving the urinary tract and liver (cholelithiasis); and

(ii) The Plaintiff was started on intravenous antibiotic to cover for the bacterial infection involving the urinary tract and the liver.

(c) On 16 July 2006 at around 3.30pm during the ward round, the Plaintiff complained to Dr Lim of some blurring of vision which she claimed she has had for 2 days but had omitted to mention earlier. The sclera of her eyes were noted to be inflamed bilaterally and the anterior chamber of both eyes looked "cloudy". Dr Lim contacted the 2nd Defendant and requested that he sees the Plaintiff for further management of her eye complaint. The Plaintiff's platelet count had, in the meantime drop dramatically to 43,000.

(d) On the same afternoon of 16 July 2006, the 2nd Defendant saw the Plaintiff for the very first time at around 4.30pm:-

(i) Examination of the eyes revealed conjunctival congestion with severe fibrin and hypopyon involving both eyes. Fundal views were not clear and both eyes had very poor vision;

(ii) A diagnosis of bilateral anterior uveitis with severe fibrin and hypopyon was made; and

(iii) As the Plaintiff was already on broad spectrum systemic antibiotics prescribed by Dr Lim, the 2nd Defendant added topical broad spectrum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top