VT Singham JC:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court judge, Taiping who had dismissed the plaintiff's claim on 26 July 2000 for damages against two Consultant Eye Specialists at the Hospital Taiping. In this appeal, the appellant and the respondents will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.

The 1st and 2nd defendants, Dr. Amarjeet Kaur and Dr. Yap Chee Seng were at all material times the Consultant Eye Specialists at the Hospital Taiping. The 3rd defendant Dr. Teh Lei Choo was at all material times the Director of the Hospital Taiping. The 4th defendant being the Government of Malaysia was the employer of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

The brief summary of the plaintiff's claim and evidence is as follows:

(1) on 20 September 1993, in the afternoon while he was cutting grass in his house compound using a grass cutter machine, he was hit on his (R) eye with some foreign body or object. He went to Hospital Taiping. At the Eye Clinic, he was examined by both Dr. Amarjeet Kaur and later by Dr. Yap Chee Seng, the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively and other medical officers. He was told by Dr. Amarjeet Kaur that there was a foreign body in his (R) eye and he needed an operation to remove the said foreign body and the facilities was only available either at Ipoh General Hospital or at Kuala Lumpur General Hospital. The plaintiff chose to go to Hospital Kuala Lumpur because he has relatives in Kuala Lumpur and that he will go on his own but in the meantime, he was admitted into the ward of the Hospital Taiping;

(2) however, Dr. Amarjeet Kaur, the 1st defendant informed him that before he is referred to the General Hospital Kuala Lumpur, she had to stitch the ruptured part of his eye. The plaintiff was then admitted into the eye ward of Hospital Taiping on the same day on 20 September 1993. Dr. Amarjeet Kaur carried out some treatment and later in the evening, he was taken into the operation room. In carrying out the operation under general anaesthesia, it is alleged that the 1st defendant negligently and unskillfully treated the plaintiff for his injured (R) eye. On recovering from the anaesthetic effect some time later, the plaintiff felt great pain in his (R) eye and continued to suffer great pain and suffering throughout the whole night;

(3) on the following day, in the morning on 21 September 1993, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant came for their morning ward rounds and removed the bandage on the treated (R) eye. After the removal of the bandage, the plaintiff could not see anything with his injured (R) eye and he continued to suffer severe pain the whole day. As a result of his pain, both the 1st and 2nd defendants carried out a further operation on his said (R) eye. After the 2nd operation, his injured (R) eye became worse and his vision continued to deteriorate. On 23 September 1993, his (R) eye was removed and as a result, the plaintiff has lost his (R) eye.

The plaintiff then filed the civil action against the two Eye Specialists, the Director of Hospital Taiping and the Government of Malaysia, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants respectively, at the Sessions Court, Taiping claiming damages for medical negligence.

At the Sessions Court, Taiping, the plaintiff was the only witness. The plaintiff did not call any medical or expert evidence to support his claim although his counsel had informed the court after the plaintiff's evidence was completed on 27 January 2000 that he has a Specialist as his witness. The case was then postponed to 4 May 2000 for continued hearing. Nevertheless, at the next date of hearing on 4 May 2000, the plaintiff closed his case without calling any medical or expert evidence to support his claim and no reason/s was advanced for not calling the expert as the plaintiff's witness.

On the other hand, the defendants contested the plaintiff's claim. The Federal Counsel who represented the defendants submitted no case to answer at the clos