SATHISVARAN CHANDRASEGARAN vs AGILAN VANMUGELAN & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 MarsdenLR 525

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SATHISVARAN CHANDRASEGARAN – Appellant
Versus
AGILAN VANMUGELAN & ANOR – Respondent

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs incurred medical expenses due to an accident. (Para 1 , 3)
2. defendant argues plaintiffs not entitled to reimbursement for insurance-paid expenses. (Para 4 , 5)
3. consensus on definition of special damages—only out-of-pocket expenses count. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. legal precedents establish handling of insurance payments in damage recovery. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

[1] This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the High Court at Penang dated 28 July 2010 in dismissing the defendant's appeal and upholding the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge at Georgetown in allowing both the plaintiffs' claim for medical expenses for the treatment of injuries suffered in a road accident.

[2] We heard the appeal on 24 November 2011 and 17 February 2012. After hearing the parties, we adjourned the matter for our consideration and decision. We now give our decision and the reasons for the same.

[3] The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs suffered injuries arising out of a road accident. They both sought private medical treatment at Gleneagles Medical Centre. The costs of the medical expenses incurred in respect of the 1st plaintiff was RM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 MarsdenLR 525

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASATHISVARAN CHANDRASEGARAN – AppellantVersusAGILAN VANMUGELAN & ANOR – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SATHISVARAN CHANDRASEGARAN – Appellant
Versus
AGILAN VANMUGELAN & ANOR – Respondent