Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 MarsdenLR 1245

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHENG HIN TENG – Appellant
Versus
DR ANUAR MD YASIN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: J-02(IM)-858-05/2022]

Petitioner Advocates:Amarjeet Singh,Avtar Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Shamalah Selvarajah,Radhia Syahira Razali

The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same matter between the same parties, especially when no new evidence is presented that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Headnote:(A) Res Judicata - The doctrine of res judicata applies where a matter has been adjudicated upon, and the same parties are involved in subsequent litigation on the same facts - The court ruled that the plaintiff's second suit was an abuse of process and precluded by res judicata due to the lack of new evidence. (Paras 7, 104)

(B) Medical Negligence - The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide credible explanations for not obtaining key medical notes during the first trial, rendering the second suit unjust and frivolous. (Paras 18, 23)

(C) Abuse of Process - The court emphasized that the legal process should not be used for re-litigation of already settled matters, affirming the principle that the defendants should not be subjected to repeated trials. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff appealed against the striking out of the second suit based on alleged new evidence of medical negligence related to his wife's death, which had already been litigated in a prior suit.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the striking out of the second suit, confirming that the doctrine of res judicata applied and that the suit constituted an abuse of process.

Issues: The main issues were whether new evidence justified reopening the case and whether the doctrine of res judicata applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier, and thus the second suit was precluded by res judicata.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

S Nantha Balan JCA:

[1] This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner of High Court dated 7 April 2022, in allowing the Defendants' application (Enclosure 29) and striking out the Suit No: 23 NCVC-4-03/2016 ("the 2nd Suit"). The decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner is reported as Cheng Hin Teng (Suing As The Husband & Legal Beneficiary Of The Deceased Wan Mei Lee) v. Dr Anuar Md Yasin & Anor (HC). The Defendants' application to strike out was based, inter alia, on a plea of res judicata. The Learned Judicial Commissioner agreed with the Defendants that the 2nd Suit was an abuse of process as it was precluded by the plea of res judicata.

[2] The Plaintiff's late wife Mdm. Wan Mei Lee ("Deceased") was admitted as a patient at the 2nd Defendant ("the Hospital") on 26th May 2001 around 7.30pm. She was taken to the Hospital with complaints of severe headache etc. She was seen by the 1st Defendant ("D1"). She was subsequently seen by one Dr. How Lay Guan. By 9.00pm her condition had deteriorated and she went into a coma. She was then taken to the Johor Specialist Centre. She died on 4 June 2001. The cause of death was massive subarachnoid haemorrhage with intra-ventricular extension.

[3] On or about 18 May 2004, the Plaintiff filed an action in medical negligence against D1 and the Hospital via Batu Pahat Sessions Court Suit No 53-186-2004 ("1st Suit"). The 1st Suit proceeded to full trial. D1 testified in the 1st Suit. The 1st Suit was dismissed on 28 December 2009. The Plaintiff appealed to the High Court but later withdrew the appeal.

[4] The Plaintiff subsequently obtained D1's handwritten notes through the intervention or assistance of the Ministry of Health on 14 November 2012. The Plaintiff filed the 2nd Suit on 27 March 2016. The Plaintiff initially based his claim in medical negligence and later amended the 2nd Suit to add a cause of action in fraud so as to impeach the judgment given in the 1st Suit.

[5] The claim based on "fraud" may be gathered from the following paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim in the 2nd Suit.

23. Plantif telah menerima surat daripada Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia bertarikh 14hb. November 2012 memaklumkan bahawa Defendan Kedua telah mengemukakan sesalinan "doctors notes" yang bertarikh 26hb. Mei 2001 yang bertulisan tangan Defendan Pertama yang telah diiakuisah "Certified True Copy" pada 22hb. Disember 2012 dan membekalkan nota tersebut kepada Plantif dan dengan adanya nota bertaip yang diakuisah oleh Defendan Pertama pada 6hb. Oktober 2011.
24. Plantif tidak puas hati dan mengatakan adanya percangahan ataupun percubaan untuk menyembunyikan fakta-fakta yang amat penting disisi undang-undang oleh Defendan Pertama dan/atau Kedua daripada Plantif dan juga terdapat percanggahan maklumat dan/atau keterangan yang diberikan oleh Defendan Pertama dimana beliau telah menyembunyikan maklumat yang sebenar dan/atau mengubahkan maklumat yang sebenar, yang kesemuanya dilakukan untuk menipu atau secara memfrodkan bagi mengelakkan keterangan sebenar untuk timbul yang dapat menyokong kes kecuaian di pihak Defendan- Defendan yang telah berlaku dalam merawat simati tersebut.
Butir-Butir Frod
(a) Defendan Pertama telah memberikan kenyataan yang palsu dalam keterangan angkat sumpahnya didalam kes Mahkamah Sesyen Batu Pahat dalam Saman No 53-186-2004 dengan menyatakan bahawa simati telah mempunyai BP 140/80 dan pulse 90/min, yang sebenarnya adalah satu penipuan sebab yang sama tidak tercatat didalam nota doktor yang ditulis dengan tangan oleh Defendan Pertama.
(b) Defendan Pertama telah membuat kenyataan palsu tersebut untuk dengan sengajanya demi mengelakkan liabiliti dimana pada masa kehadiran simati sudah terdapat tanda- tanda yang menyokong bahawa simati mempunyai keadaan ruptured aneurysm yang amat ketara terbukti atas adanya kenaikan BP pada paras yang tinggi ke 160/96 yang wujud dengan keadaan kesakitan kepala, kelemahan, numbness dan keadaan ke

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 MarsdenLR 1245

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYACHENG HIN TENG – AppellantVersusDR ANUAR MD YASIN & ANOR – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: J-02(IM)-858-05/2022]

The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same matter between the same parties, especially when no new evidence is presented that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHENG HIN TENG – Appellant
Versus
DR ANUAR MD YASIN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: J-02(IM)-858-05/2022]