HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MATHEW SCOTT OAKLEY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
DR GEORGE VARUGHESE & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of negligence claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. burden of proof in negligence cases. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 3. standard of care and bolam test. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. adoption of rogers v. whitaker test. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. lack of expert testimony affecting plaintiffs' case. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. causation must be proven in negligence. (Para 44 , 46 , 47 , 49) |
| 7. application of res ipsa loquitur. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 64 , 65) |
[1] Nik Rosemawati binti Nik Mohamed ("the deceased") was unhappy with her appearance. She went for an abdominal liposuction procedure at a plastic surgery clinic. Minutes after the procedure was completed, she suffered a cardiac arrest. She was then transferred to Gleneagles Intan Medical Centre. Two days later she died. She was 44 years old.
[2] The 1st plaintiff was the husband and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs the children of the deceased. They have filed this claim as dependants of the deceased within the meaning of s. 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 . They are claiming for loss of support. They are alleging negligence on the part of the defendants whi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.