The burden of proof in medical negligence cases lies with the Plaintiffs, who must provide expert evidence to establish a breach of duty and causation.

JUDGMENT

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

Introduction

[1] Mr Saman Abdullah ("the Deceased") felt uncomfortable one night. He was rushed to the Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital ("the 3rd Defendant Hospital") after series of vomiting, headache, and weakness. He was given immediate attention and surgery procedure was conducted by the specialist Dato' Dr Ahmad Murtazam ("1st Defendant") and Dato' Dr Samina A. Ghani (2nd Defendant"). The surgery was successful, and the Deceased lived for another 11 years before his demise at the end of this trial. However, the Deceased and the family felt that they were not given proper treatment during the surgery. Hence, this action ("this Action") was filed against the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant, and the 3rd Defendant Hospital.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[2] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs consist of the son, the wife, and the daughter of the Deceased, respectively. All of them together with the Deceased during his lifetime filed this Action alleging medical malpractice against the Defendants.

[3] On 22 September 2011, complaining of headache, vomit, weakness and severe chest pain, the Deceased was rushed to the 3rd Defendant Hospital. Upon examination, the Plaintiffs were informed that the Deceased needed an urgent surgery to replace the valve in his heart.

[4] The 1st Defendant is a cardiologist who had carried out coronary angiogram on the Deceased. The 2nd Defendant is a cardiologist consultant who had carried out an Aortic Valve Replacement ('AVR') open heart surgery and Coronary Artery Bypass surgery ('CABG') on the Deceased.

[5] However, when the Deceased was brought back from the surgery, the Plaintiffs were informed that the Deceased had also undergone CABG surgery. The Plaintiffs claimed they were not informed and had never consented to this.

[6] The Plaintiffs then requested for the Deceased to be transferred to Serdang Hospital, where the Deceased was treated and finally regained consciousness. He lived on until the end of the trial of this Action.

[7] Upon his passing, the other Plaintiffs have continued this Action claiming damages from the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Case

[8] The Plaintiffs' claim is premised on medical negligence of the Defendants whereby they had alleged, inter alia, that:

a) the 1st and 2nd Defendants had breached the duty of care by failing to give proper diagnosis and treatment to the Deceased, which materially contributed to the Deceased's suffering postsurgery;

b) the 1st and 2nd Defendants had breached the duty of care by failing to explain the risks associated with the surgery to the Deceased;

c) the 1st and 2nd Defendants had breached the duty of care by failing to obtain consent for the procedures undertaken by them, particularly for the CABG procedure performed on the Deceased; and

d) the 3rd Defendant Hospital had breached the standard duty of care by failing to treat the Deceased post-surgery.

The 1st Defendant's Case

[9] In his defence, the 1st Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs' claim occurred mainly on the AVR and CABG. None of these procedures were carried out by the 1st Defendant. Hence, there is no legal basis to impose on him the duty to advice or warn the Deceased of the risks.

[10] Besides, no harm had ever resulted from the coronary angiogram carried out by the 1st Defendant. The Deceased had survived against all odds after the procedure at that time.

[11] Furthermore, it was argued that no expert evidence was led by the Plaintiffs about any breach of standards on the part of the 1st Defendant.

The 2nd Defendant's Case

[12] It is the 2nd Defendant's case that the Plaintiffs have failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that the 2nd Defendant had in fact breached his duty of care towards the Deceased.

[13] The Plaintiffs have failed to prove any causation between the alleged sub- optimal standard to the Deceased's complications and death more than 10 years after the procedure on 22 September 2011.

[14] The 2nd Defendant maintained that there w