Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1433
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH
SEOW CHEE YONG LWN. MOHD NAZRI HAMZAH & YANG LAIN
[Rayuan Sivil No: CB-12B-9-10/2023]
The plaintiff must demonstrate the necessity and reasonableness of private medical treatment when similar services are available at government hospitals.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act 1956 - Section 28A - Personal injury claims - The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the plaintiff's claim for RM583,265.66 for private hospital treatment, emphasizing the need to prove the necessity of private treatment when government facilities are available. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 9, 27)
(B) Medical treatment rights - A plaintiff has the right to seek treatment at a private hospital, but must demonstrate that such treatment is necessary and reasonable. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns the refusal of the lower court to allow a claim for medical expenses incurred at a private hospital, which the plaintiff failed to justify as necessary over available government options. (Paras 1, 9, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court's decision to deny the claim was correct, noting that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the treatment at the private hospital was necessary. (Paras 9, 27)
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the plaintiff justified seeking treatment at a private hospital when similar services were available at government hospitals. (Paras 1, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff must prove the necessity and reasonableness of seeking private treatment, particularly when government alternatives exist, as established in previous cases. (Paras 4, 6, 27)
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was upheld.
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkaitan dengan kuantum gantirugi terutamanya gantirugi khas. Isu yang ada dalam kes ini ialah kegagalan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen untuk membenarkan tuntutan rawatan yang diperolehi daripada hospital swasta sebanyak RM583,265.66 yang telah dibayar oleh syarikat insurans. Alasan mengapa Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen tidak membenarkan tuntutan tersebut ialah kerana Perayu tidak membuktikan bahawa tuntutan ini adalah munasabah dan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan rawatan yang diterima di Sunway Medical Centre tidak terdapat di hospital kerajaan.
Asas Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
[2] Dalam kes ini juga Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah merujuk kepada prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam kes Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai ; ; [2004] 2 CLJ 321; [2004] 3 AMR 341 dan Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors; [2019] 4 CLJ 280 ; [2018] 6 AMR 767.
[3] Penelitian kepada kes Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (supra) menunjukkan bahawa Mahkamah Rayuan berdasarkan fakta dalam kes tersebut menyatakan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa rawatan yang diperolehi oleh pihak Plaintif tidak dapat diperolehi di hospital kerajaan:
"[19] After careful consideration, we do not think that sufficient reasons have been given to show that it was justified and reasonable for the plaintiff to be awarded the full sum of treatment expenses at the private hospital. There was evidence that the treatment required and the expertise needed is available at government hospitals. It cannot be the case that government or public hospitals are unable to deal with cerebral palsy patients. The excuse that the parents are working during office hours applies to almost everyone these days.
[20] In our assessment, the courts below were entitled to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to the full costs of a private hospital. We are not persuaded that we should interfere with the awards made by the learned judge for past as well as future medical care and treatment. Those awards are therefore affirmed.
[21] We should also add that the learned judge was right in allowing the medical expenses paid by the employer, Maybank. With the Federal Court decision in Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v. Soo Cheng Lin & Another Appeal; [2017] 10 CLJ 529; [2017] 6 AMR 609, medical expenses paid by an insurer or employer or a benevolent third party are recoverable as damages by the claimant. In this context, the Federal Court followed the Supreme Court decision in Frank Astle Ward v. Malaysian Airlines System Bhd; [1991] 3 MLJ 317; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 117; [1991] 2 ILR 906 instead of the case of Sathisvaran. The Federal Court noted that Sathisvaran was decided without the benefit of full argument and the extensive authorities made available to the Federal Court ."
[4] Sementara itu dalam kes Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai (supra) Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan seperti berikut:
"59. To summarize my view on the issue, every person has a right to seek medical treatment at a hospital of his choice be it at a government hospital or at a private hospital. But, when it comes to awarding damages for such treatment, if the treatment is sought at a government hospital, the full amount expended and paid by the person should be awarded. But, if he seeks treatment at a private hospital, he has to prove, first that he is justified to seek treatment at a private hospital and, secondly, the amount incurred is reasonable. Regarding the first hurdle that he has to cross:
(a) He must prove that that particular treatment is not available at the government hospital either due to the unavailability of the necessary equipment or qualified doctors or other sufficient reasons; or
(b) He must prove that though the treatment is available at a general hospital, it is not available within a reasonable period considering the urgency of the treatment. This may be due to the congestion at the government hospital or for other sufficient reasons;
