Unqualified individuals providing emergency treatment are held to the same standard of care as qualified practitioners; negligence must be established by proving causation linking the act to the injury or death.

The Documentary Evidence And Exhibits

[1] For the sake of clarity, I will first introduce the documentary evidence and exhibits tendered. The Agreed Bundle of Documents are as follows:

(1) Bundle B : documents therein agreed on authenticity and content (Part A)

(2) Bundle C : documents therein agreed on authenticity (Part B)

(3) Bundle D : documents therein to be formally proved (Part C)

(4) Exhibit P.1 : document at p 1 of Bundle D but agreed at the trial

(5) Exhibit P.1(a) : document at p 2 of Bundle D but agreed at the trial

(6) Exhibits D.1, D.2 and D.3 : documents agreed at the trial

(7) Exhibit D.4 : document agreed at the trial

(8) Exhibit D.5 : document agreed at the trial

[2] Hereinafter, the documents will be referred to either by the exhibit number or the bundle marking and page as for instance, p 1 of Bundle B will be referred to as B1 and p 3 of Bundle C as C3 and so on.

The Facts

[3] The 1st plaintiff Mr Ang Yew Meng and the 2nd plaintiff Madam Siah Kwee Khim are husband and wife. They had several children one of which was a son by the name of Ang Wee Siang. On the evening of December 1, 2001 at about 5.00 pm, Madam Siah showed up at the Poliklinik Taj 24 Jam ("the clinic") located at No. 27, Jalan Sri Perkasa 2/1, Taman Tampoi Utama in Johor Bahru. She was in a state of panic, distress and agitation. At that time Dr Sashikannan Arunasalam, the 1st defendant, was in the clinic. He was alone. Madam Siah told him that her son was in her car parked outside with high fever and she asked him for help. He told her that the doctor was out. She nevertheless insisted that he help. He went over to the car and found a young boy lying supine on the rear seat seemingly unconscious and with a high temperature. The boy had no control of his limbs. The 1st defendant realised at once that his condition was serious and life threatening. He asked the mother to take him to the hospital but she entreated him to examine and treat the boy. He relented. He said he could not turn her away because it was an emergency and with the knowledge that he had, he thought he should render assistance that might help. Thereupon, he carried the child into the clinic and placed him on the examination bed. As he was carrying the boy, he tried to get the history of the illness from the mother. However, there was a language barrier as she could not understand him and at the same time, she was upset, frightened and slightly incoherent. Other than the child's name and age, he could not get any useful information from her on the condition of the child.

[4] The 1st defendant took the child's temperature and found it to be 40°C. He did not take the child's blood pressure because he thought there was no paediatric cuff in the clinic. Dr Muruga Raj, the 2nd defendant and the doctor in charge at the clinic, was later to testify that the paediatric cuff was on the doctor's table, which the 1st defendant had no access to. Seeing the serious condition of the child, the 1st defendant thought it best for the mother to rush him to a hospital as the clinic had limited facilities to treat a patient in that condition. The mother however implored him to treat the child. He started cold water sponging to try to bring down the temperature. That did not work. He therefore decided to use Diclofenac Sodium also known as Voltaren. Before he administered it, he asked the mother for any history of allergic reaction to the drug. S