Low Hop Bing J:

Appeal

On 20 June 1992, the Sessions Court Judge in Kuala Lumpur found the 2nd defendant Dr Wong Wai Ping herein wholly liable in professional medical negligence for the death of the patient Yong Siew Yin consequent upon her delivering a baby. The 1st defendant, Hospital Pantai Sdn Bhd was held to be vicariously liable for the conduct of the 2nd defendant. For ease of reference, the respondent in this appeal shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellants viz Hospital Pantai Sdn Bhd and Dr. Wong Wai Ping, as the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant respectively. Both the defendants, being dissatisfied with the said decision, appeal to this court in respect of the issue of liability only.

Complexity Of The Case

The factual matrix of this case based on medical negligence is somewhat complex, and the trial sessions court judge did experience enormous difficulties in attempting to put the facts and circumstances of the case as comprehensibly as possible. The complexity of this appeal, by way of rehearing, is reflected in 3 substantial volumes of the appeal record, consisting of a total of some 1300 pages of notes of evidence, documentary exhibits and grounds of decision. In addition, there is a need to peruse an equal number of pages found in numerous formidable bundles of authorities, including medical literature made up of words of learned length and thundering sound. In the circumstances, the writing of this judgment is undoubtedly an increasingly assiduous task which has to be performed with meticulous care and attention, so that the parties herein would have the opportunity to perceive and understand the merits, and also the whys and wherefores of their respective cases.

Facts

Plaintiff's Case

The plaintiff is the husband of the deceased. On 24 May 1987, between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m., the plaintiff's wife complained of wetting and so the plaintiff called the Pantai Medical Centre (PMC). The plaintiff was told to bring his wife to PMC for checking and observation. The plaintiff took his wife there at 2.15 p.m. when she was admitted for observation. One nursing sister Mah informed the 2nd defendant of the patient's request to see the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant saw the patient at 10.00 p.m. the same evening.

Plaintiff visited his wife the next day on 25 May 1987 at 8.45 a.m. and was told by his wife that she had been put on drips since 7.45 a.m. on 25 May 1987. At about 11.00 a.m., his wife complained to him that the 2nd defendant did not use a special machine i.e. a cardio-meter to monitor her heart beat and that of their baby. At 11.30 a.m., she complained of slight pulling pain at the lower part of the stomach. After the plaintiff had come back from lunch, his wife told him that the 2nd defendant had informed her that the baby would be delivered at 5.00 p.m., or else at 9.00 p.m. Meanwhile, her contractions were becoming more regular. At 3.25 p.m., she was transferred to the labour room, accompanied by her husband. To ease the pain due to contractions, one nursing sister Ng gave her an injection at 4.30 p.m. The pain relief lasted for 20 minutes, after which the patient was given laughing gas i.e. nitrogen oxide to inhale. Later, the plaintiff went for dinner. Upon his return at about 5.30 p.m., he did not see the 2nd defendant in attendance. At 6.10 p.m., the plaintiff's sister-in-law told him that the 2nd defendant expected to deliver the baby at 9.00 p.m. Meanwhile, the 2nd defendant went home. At 6.40 p.m., on complaining of unbearable pain, the patient was given a second pain relieving injection. The patient was told not to push the baby as it was not due at that time. Both the baby's and the mother's heart beat respectively were not monitored, neither were the uterus contractions. At 6.50 p.m. the patient was given a second tank of laughing gas and this time she administered it herself. Meanwhile, two nursing sisters were discussing the amount of solution to be added to the drips,