Medical practitioners must adhere strictly to their qualifications and licensing; performing unauthorized procedures constitutes a breach of duty of care.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] This is a medical negligence claim arising from two aesthetic procedures performed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff. The procedures involved nose implant work and ear cartilage grafting. At the heart of this case lies a fundamental question: whether the Defendant, as an aesthetic medical practitioner qualified only under Chapter 1 of the Guidelines on Aesthetic Medical Practice (LCP), was qualified and licensed to perform these procedures on the Plaintiff. If he was, did he breach his standard of care towards the Plaintiff? Was the Plaintiff's pain and suffering due to the Plaintiff's breach?

[2] The Plaintiff had commenced his suit for medical negligence against the Defendant and one Dr Jeffrey Lim Chung Yeow, both of whom were practising together at Gorgeous Clinic, G-6 Block A Vista Magna, Metro Prima Kepong, 52100 Kuala Lumpur. That was where the two aesthetic procedures undertaken by the Defendant on the Plaintiff took place. His suit was filed on 28 March 2022. On 27 September 2023, the Plaintiff withdrew his claim against Dr Jeffrey Lim Chung Yeow. The trial was against the Defendant alone.

[3] Prior to the trial, on 20 April 2023, this Court had ordered the Plaintiff to bring down his live videos posted on his social media account recording his visit to Gorgeous Clinic, harassing and berating the Defendant uttering sub judice comments. Then on 26 July 2023 this Court had ordered the Plaintiff to adhere and comply with the order of 20 April 2023 with immediate effect and he was fined RM10,000.00 for failing to abide by the said Court order.

Pleadings Of The Parties

[4] The Plaintiff's case rests primarily on the contention that the Defendant was negligent contending that the Defendant had failed, refused and/or was negligent to provide proper advice in accordance with medical procedural standards. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed, refused and/or was negligent to comply with the standards of the professional code of ethics of the practice of medicine. There are ten other particulars of negligence pleaded that included the failure to provide advice on the procedure to be performed on the Plaintiff and its side effects, to ensure that the 'rhinoplasty surgery' was done properly without any negligence and complications, and maintaining a sterile environment for the surgical procedures.

[5] In his defence, the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had undergone rhinoplasty procedures on 5 separate occasions in Thailand. He had suffered infections at the nose after each rhinoplasty which had resolved after intravenous antibiotic treatment and the Plaintiff had also received a semi- permanent filler injection of the nose. The Defendant during trial alluded to deny that the procedure he had carried out against the Plaintiff was rhinoplasty surgery; the Defendant suggested through the questions put to the witnesses in this Court that it was more like a corrective procedure.

[6] The Defendant's pleaded defence was that the Plaintiff was not agreeable to the Defendant's advice to remove the implant but instead had requested that the Defendant trimmed the implant to a smaller size. The Defendant claimed that he had advised the Plaintiff on the effects of not removing the implant but the Plaintiff was adamant. The Defendant denied having represented to the Plaintiff that he was a cosmetic surgeon who had carried out successful rhinoplasty procedures in the past.

[7] According to the Defendant's pleaded defence, despite being informed and advised, the Plaintiff had decided to proceed with nose implant trimming on 21 May 2021. The nose implant trimming was carried out by the Defendant. A week later, on 28 May 2021 at the follow-up consultation, the Defendant contended that he had attended to cleaning up the Plaintiff's nose when it became swollen post-surgery and cleaned up the sutures. The Defendant pleaded that at the subsequent follow-up consultations on 4 June 2021, 22 June 2021 and 3