Abdul Malik Ishak J:

[1] Without mincing words, this was a case of bad treatment where the plaintiff went in with a fairly good right eye and came out blind as a bat. It reminded me of the case of Baylill v. Gringley Children's Hospital Lancet, cited in Mehta Medical Law and Ethics in India, 1963 at p 207 where Mr Justice Stable found the hospital guilty of negligence where a child who went in with a healthy left leg came out a cripple.

[2] The plaintiff came to know of the defendant after reading a newspaper advertisement sometime on 21 July 1985 and that advertisement extolled the virtues of the defendant as a traditional eye healer. This prompted the plaintiff to proceed to the defendant's premises at Sungai Balang, Batu Pahat and there the plaintiff submitted to the defendant who, in due course, performed two eye operations using an ancient method known as "couching" which resulted in the loss of vision to the right eye of the plaintiff. It was not in dispute that, at the material time, the defendant was practicing as a traditional healer under the Medical Act 1971. The plaintiff now claimed for special and general damages against the defendant.

[3] In his evidence, the plaintiff narrated that he lost the sight of his left eye in a road accident that occurred in 1965. Four to five years after that road accident, the vision of his left eye was restricted to 50%; it worsened and eventually his left eye became blind. Dr Voon Chee Cheng (PW2 - "Dr Voon"), an eye specialist, testified and she categorically diagnosed the plaintiff's left eye as "Chronic iridocyclitis" an inflammation of the iris and ciliary body. Dr Voon testified that "chronic iridocyclitis" could be caused by previous trauma to the left eye; for instance an accident in a car which would be followed, after a span of four to five years, to "chronic iridocyclitis." The plaintiff admitted that after the road accident he was unconscious and on regaining consciousness he found himself in the hospital with his left eyebrow cut. Dr Voon was categorical when she said that an ordinary medical officer would not be able to detect the damage to the left eye of the plaintiff at the material time except to suture the injury to the left eyebrow of the plaintiff. Dr Voon further confirmed that the severe knock must have been located at the left eyeball itself. Of pertinence, Dr Voon emphatically stated that the blindness of the left eye cannot spread to that of the right eye. This damning piece of evidence cut across the defendant's version that the blindness of the left eye was responsible for the blindness to the right eye of the plaintiff.

[4] The plaintiff testified that the problem with his right eye started sometime in 1983. In 1985, the vision to his right eye was only about 50% and that he could see objects within a range of 12 feet. He was also able to read newspapers, watch television and walk like ordianry person. When the plaintiff went to see the defendant, the latter gave assurances that he could treat the plaintiff's right eye. The defendant proceeded to examine both eyes using a torch light and confirmed that he could cure the right eye within 14 days. The defendant told the plaintiff that he needed to remove the cataract from the plaintiff's right eye. In an outburst of emotion, the plaintiff testified.

Saya cari awak (referring to the defendant) sebab awak mengiklankan kepakaran awak. Dan apabila saya tanya awak, awak kata awak boleh rawat mata kanan saya.

[5] The defendant also represented to the plaintiff that he was registered with the Ministry of Health and that his practice was insured. The defendant took pains to convince the plaintiff that he had successfully treated other patients with similar eye conditions. The defendant even guaranteed that he could cure the plaintiff's right eye. It is now crystal clear that the defendant had not disputed nor challenged the representations as alluded to earlier. As a patient, the plaintiff must have expected to