A perfected judgment cannot be amended or altered, reaffirming the functus officio doctrine.

Background Facts

[1] This is an application to amend the judgment of the court dated 14 July 2015 ("the Judgment"). The Judgment was delivered by learned Judicial Commissioner Dato' Nordin Hassan ("the learned JC") after conclusion of full trial of two consolidated actions ie 22NCVC-85-02/2013 and 22NCVC-307-10/2013.

[2] In these actions, Adventist Hospital & Clinic Services (M) sued Kee Boon Suan and Ang Mooi Sim for outstanding medical charges of their daughter, Kee Jun Hui (collectively referred as "the Patient"). By way of counterclaim, the Patient claimed against Adventist Hospital & Clinic Services (M), Dr Cheok Chee Yew, Dr Patrick Tan KS and Dr Wong Chung Chek (collectively referred as "the Hospital") for medical negligence which left Kee Jun Hui paralyzed from the neck down and dependant on a ventilator for breathing.

[3] On 14 July 2015, the learned JC allowed the Hospital's claim for the outstanding medical charges in the sum of RM2,350,013.85. The learned JC also found that the Hospital was liable for medical negligence and awarded damages of RM6,037,802.00 to the Patient. Based on the minutes of the court on 14 July 2015, the details of the Judgment are as follows:-

a) The Hospital's claim for outstanding medical charges is allowed;

b) The Patient is to pay the Hospital RM2,350,013.85;

c) The Patient to pay costs RM20,000.00 to the Hospital;

d) The Patient's claim for medical negligence is allowed; and

e) The Hospital is to pay the Patient general damages of RM6,023,802.00.

[4] However, in the course of preparing the draft for the Judgment, counsels for both parties were not able to come to terms on the details of the Judgment. Counsel for the Hospital, Messrs. Chan Ban Eng & Company, claims that the draft prepared by the counsel for the Patient, M/s Rhina Bhar, does not truly reflect the decision of the learned JC. Counsel for the Hospital then proceeded to write to the Registrar requesting for an appointment with the learned JC for clarification of the Judgment.

[5] Both parties were granted audience before the learned JC on 5 August 2015. During the meeting, the issue regarding the details of the Judgment was resolved and the draft for the Judgment was subsequently filed by the parties. Minutes of the meeting on that day discloses as follows:-

"Dato Mahinder Singh bersama Ms SL Mah,

Dato Rhina Bharbersama MS Dhillon,

J A Yeoh

Pihak-pihak telah membangkitkan beberapa isu dan telah mencapai persetujuan. Deraf Perintah akan disediakan seperti persetujuan hari ini."

[6] Despite that, the Hospital filed an application dated 12 November 2015 ("the Amendment Application") to amend and/or vary the Judgment. The Hospital states that the reason behind the application is because there are discrepancies in the Judgment and the written grounds of judgment ("the Grounds"). The Hospital claims that the Judgment fails to reflect that the counterclaim was allowed in favour of all the Plaintiffs as per the Grounds. The Hospital also claims that the total award of damages should be RM6,023,802.00 instead of RM6,037,600.00. For these given reasons, the Hospital proposes to amend and/or vary para 4 and 6 of the Judgment.

[7] The Amendment Application was fixed for first case management before the learned Registrar on 23 November 2015 who then fixed the matter for hearing before the learned JC on 15 January 2016. Sometime in December 2015, the learned JC was transferred to Kuala Lumpur High court effective on 1 January 2016. As such, the Amendment Application is now fixed before me.

Findings

[8] I must begin by stating that even though I a