Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
HASNIYATI HASSAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PANTAI HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-12NCvC-8-06/2019]
Based on the provided document, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs involves establishing the factual background of the case, including the injuries suffered by P1 and P2, the circumstances surrounding the medical negligence, and the impact on their physical and mental health (!) (!) (!) (!) . The plaintiffs will describe the medical procedures, complications, and subsequent injuries that resulted from the alleged negligence (!) (!) (!) (!) . They will also detail the psychiatric injuries sustained by P1 and the ongoing medical and rehabilitative needs of P2, emphasizing the necessity for future medical treatment, prosthetic devices, and supportive care (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the plaintiffs are expected to testify regarding the damages claimed, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, medical expenses, and care costs, supported by expert medical opinions and relevant documentation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . They will also address the necessity and reasonableness of the claimed future costs, such as prosthetics, therapy, and assistance, and how these are directly attributable to the negligence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In sum, the examination-in-chief will focus on establishing the factual matrix of the case, demonstrating the extent of injuries, ongoing needs, and the causal link to the alleged negligence, thereby laying the foundation for the assessment of damages.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is a medical negligence claim by the 1st plaintiff ("P1") and her son, the 2nd plaintiff ("P2"). P1 and P2 are collectively referred to as the "plaintiffs". The 4th defendant ("D"), the Government of Malaysia, as the owner and manager of Penang Hospital had admitted liability on 22 October 2020, with damages and costs to be assessed. The claims against the other defendants have been discontinued. The trial proceeded only on the issue of assessment of damages. The trial was previously part-heard by another judge and then continued before me.
Background Facts
[2] P1 suffered surgical removal of her womb and other reproductive organs. She is unable to have any more children. These injuries caused her to suffer a psychiatric injury which fortunately has now improved. There is common ground between the psychiatric medical witnesses on both sides as regards such injury, her current condition and the future prognosis.
[3] P2 suffered an above-elbow auto-amputation of his right arm at day 52 of life. Similarly, there is common ground as regards his injury and his current condition and the future prognosis. However the type of upper-limb prosthetic arm that he will require in the future is in dispute. There are 2 types of prosthetic arm available for P2. One is the body-powered (or mechanical) prosthesis and the other is the myo-electric (or bionic) prosthesis. D proposed the mechanical arm. The plaintiffs' expert recommended both, the mechanical arm for the outdoors and the bionic arm for the indoors.
[4] On 1 July 2016 at 3:30pm, P1 presented herself at Pantai Hospital Penang complaining of abdominal discomfort and vaginal discharge. She was 27 weeks' pregnant at that time. At 7:30pm on the same day, she was admitted to a ward in Pantai Hospital. However, she was transferred out of Pantai Hospital with a referral letter. The reason given was because there were no beds available in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The referral letter stated:- "advised to go to PGH in view of no ventilator support/ICU backup". After some delay in communication at Pantai Hospital, P1 arrived at the Penang Hospital at 9:16pm. The doctors at the Penang Hospital did well to undertake an emergency lower segment Caesarean section. P2 was delivered at 9.49pm the same night and was taken to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in view of his prematurity.
[5] Post-operatively, P1 developed severe bleeding and went into prolonged shock. The next day, on 2 July 2016 at 5:59 pm, she underwent a repeat laparotomy, a total hysterectomy and a right salpingo-oophorectomy. Her uterus, the right ovary and the right fallopian tube were removed. She was then admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for 24-hour observation. The following day, on 3 July 2016, she was transferred out from the Intensive Care Unit to the maternity ward. Two days later, on 5 July 2016, she was discharged home and given an appointment at the Post-Natal Clinic on 19 July 2016 (two weeks later).
[6] P2 was born limp with irregular breathing, with bruises over his forehead and upper limbs. He was resuscitated and ventilated by the paediatric team. He suffered two cardiovascular collapses in his first hour of life. He spent 12 days on ventilator support. He went on to spend most of his time at the Penang Hospital in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, during which he suffered from various complications. This included the autoamputation of his right arm as a result of complications arising from the insertion of an arterial line at day 2 of life. The formation of a block in the artery had caused the death of the tissues in his arm. The arm became gangrenous over time and dropped off by itself some 50 days later. Shortly after the auto-amputation of the right arm, P2 suffered an infection at his stump site. There was discharge of pus from the stump site. An x-ray imaging revealed infection of the bone, known as osteomyelitis. This necessitated the administration of antibi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
