DR HARI KRISHNAN & ANOR vs MEGAT NOOR ISHAK MEGAT IBRAHIM & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 1172

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR HARI KRISHNAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MEGAT NOOR ISHAK MEGAT IBRAHIM & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. two appeals concerning medical negligence were examined. (Para 1 , 19 , 22)
2. the court clarifies the application of relevant tests for medical negligence. (Para 2 , 3)
3. the high court's findings on negligence and vicarious liability of the hospital. (Para 20 , 21)
4. the court of appeal's analysis of the roles of the doctors and hospital. (Para 23)
5. decision on negligence and vicarious liability of hospitals was affirmed. (Para 24 , 40 , 44)
6. court's consideration of the validity of the judgments below. (Para 30 , 31)
7. the distinction between vicarious liability and non-delegable duty is emphasized. (Para 37 , 38)
8. the appeals established clarifications in law on medical negligence liability. (Para 86 , 91)

[1] These two appeals are against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the High Court in allowing the claim in medical negligence brought by Megat Noor Ishak Megat Ibrahim (the plaintiff). The plaintiffs claim was brought against the 1st defendant, ophthalmologist Dr Hari Krishnan (Dr Hari), the 2nd defendant, anaesthetist Dr Mohamed Namazie (Dr Namazie), and the 3rd defendant, the Tun Hussein Onn National Eye Hospital (the H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 1172

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYADR HARI KRISHNAN & ANOR – AppellantVersusMEGAT NOOR ISHAK MEGAT IBRAHIM & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DR HARI KRISHNAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MEGAT NOOR ISHAK MEGAT IBRAHIM & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent