Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
PAUL RAJ SAMY RAJ – Appellant
Versus
PULAU PINANG CLINIC SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of medical negligence claim due to misdiagnosis. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. establishing a chronology of relevant medical events. (Para 19) |
| 3. determining the appropriate start date for limitation period. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court rationale that limitation begins at injury occurrence, not discovery. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. reasons why section 6a does not apply to medical negligence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 46) |
| 6. personal injury includes mental distress, thus limiting applicability of s 6a. (Para 50 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66) |
| 7. decision to strike out claim as it is time-barred. (Para 68 , 69) |
(Striking Out Claim For Limitation):
Prelusion
[1] The Plaintiff sues the doctors whom he alleges misdiagnosed and misadvised him. He also sues the clinic at which the doctors practise medicine.
[2] The doctors apply to strike out the Plaintiff's claim for being time-barred. Should the Plaintiff's claim be stuck out?
Preliminary Note
[3] The 2nd and 4th Defendants together filed an Application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim as against them. The 3rd Defendant files a separate Application to stri
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
