In personal injury cases, the right to seek medical treatment in private hospitals, including those in neighboring countries, is upheld if justified by medical necessity and proximity.

Sulong Matjeraie JC:

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court judge by the appellant/defendant (appellant).

Background

The respondent/plaintiff, Tan Seng Kee (respondent) and another were involved in a road accident on 8 June 1992. Injuries suffered by the respondent include the following:

1. Head injury - with fracture of frontal bone of skull;

2. Injuries and fracture of left leg that resulted in high knee amputation of left leg with the fibula completely removed. Walks with prosthesis;

3. Comminuted fracture and dislocation of left radius and wrist;

4. Severe abdominal injuries with damaged intestines;

5. Scaring.

Consequent to the accident the respondent was initially admitted to Hospital Sultanah Aminah Johor Bahru and then transferred to the Johor Specialist Hospital where he received treatment from 8 June 1992 to 10 July 1992. On 10 July 1992 the respondent was transferred to Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore and was receiving treatment until 16 September 1992 (for two months seven days).

Expenses incurred by the 1st respondent are as follows: 1. Medical expenses in Malaysia ... RM 70,168.00 2. Medical expenses in Singapore (Sin $79,368.70) ... RM138,895.22

Although in the memorandum of appeal the appellant appeals against the medical expenses incurred in both Malaysia and Singapore, at the hearing learned counsel for the appellant notified this court that the appellant is only challenging the medical expenses incurred in Singapore amounting to Sin $79,368.70.

Arguments For The Appellant

Learned counsel M. Nathan, for the appellant argued that the learned Sessions Court judge erred in concluding that the respondent should be fully compensated for the medical expenses incurred in Singapore contrary to the evidence available before the court as well as the authorities on this issue.

During an examination in chief on SD1 Dr. Lee Thian Chai (SD1) (pp. 77 & 78 Appeal Record) the witness, a graduate of University of London in 1982, Master of Medicine from University of Singapore 1986, MRCP London (1987), Fellow of Chest Physician USA and a member of Academy of Medicine Malaysia (1996) and a Fellow of Royal College of Edinburgh, Scotland (FRCES), said that Johor Specialist Hospital have adequate facilities to treat the respondent. Further SD1 said "from my perspective we would be able to give the same treatment as Mount Elizabeth Hospital Singapore."

All major treatment, surgery and haemodialysis were done at Johor Specialist (Hospital) said SD1. Although SD1 did not ask the respondent to seek treatment at Mount Elizabeth Hospital he gave a reference letter so that the first respondent can go to Singapore as it would not be right for him to refuse giving such letter once a transfer is requested.

At p. 80 Appeal Record SD1 said "we arranged (agreed) to their request in the interest of patient because of the proximate (sic) with Singapore. This is common phenomena with Johorean. We cannot stop them."

It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Sessions Court judge erred on the premise on which the decision was based. From pp. 77 to 80 of the Appeal Record, Johor Specialist Hospital has adequate facilities to treat the respondent. Therefore the suggestion made by the learned Sessions Court judge that the respondent was sent to Singapore on the advice of Johor Specialist Hospital is obviously incorrect, contends the appellant.

Absence Of Evidence Of Grossly Inadequate Treatment And Attention

At p. 17 of the Additional Appeal Record, SD1 in his letter dated 29 June 1992 said that the respondent was admitted hypotensive with multiple injuries under Dr. Ahmad Khan (Consultant Neurosurgeon), Dr. Zulrani Dato Shaari (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon), Dr. Ismail Abdullah (Consultant Surgeon & Gastroenterologist) and Dr.