Mokhtar Sidin JCA:

This is a claim by the plaintiff against both defendants for medical negligence. This was as a result of the treatment given by Dr. Soo Fook Mun (hereinafter referred to as the "2nd defendant") at the Assunta Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the hospital"). The plaintiff went into the hospital after the car she was in was involved in an accident somewhere near the hospital. The undisputed facts in respect of this case is that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was 24 years. She was a young woman gainfully employed as a clerk-cumtypist. On the late evening of 11 July 1982 she, her boyfriend and two others went for supper in a car driven by her boyfriend. It was after 10pm. The plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat. The car then collided into a tree. After the collision the plaintiff immediately alighted from the car and assisted the driver and his sister out of the car. She then shouted for help and some people from a nearby mosque came to her aid. All three were then sent to the hospital in another car. At the entrance to the hospital, the plaintiff on her own alighted from the car and walked unassisted into the emergency room. She was admitted and a series of x-rays were then taken after which she was warded. At that time she was able to move her body and limbs though she felt some pains at the neck.

In her evidence the plaintiff stated that when the x-rays were taken and on admission she was able to move her limbs. Further in her evidence she said that from 12.01am until 8am on 12 July 1982 the 2nd defendant did not come and see her. The 2nd defendant came to see her only on Monday afternoon (12 July) or the next morning. Finally when the 2nd defendant came and examined her, she was told that she had suffered dislocation on two of her neck bones. He also told the plaintiff that injury was a small problem and asked her to rest in bed. It is clear from the evidence that at that material time the plaintiff was able to move her body and limbs. The plaintiff had to wear cervical collar in order to contain the neck pain. The 2nd defendant ordered traction to be done on the plaintiff, ie, by placing a strip under her chin and pulling her neck backwards with weights attached. This treatment was carried out for two days. When the treatment was done the plaintiff was conscious and able to move her body and limbs. The 2nd defendant stopped this treatment after two days when he decided that it was unsuccessful. The 2nd defendant then tried close manipulation under anaesthetic and again this was unsuccessful. On that failure the 2nd defendant then recommended surgery (open reduction). It is clear that the evidence up to that stage was accepted by both sides except that the plaintiff disputed the time taken for traction treatment was too short and that was why there was no effect. It is clear to me that at the time just before the surgery the plaintiff was not paralysed because she was still able to move her body and limbs. The surgery was the beginning of the problems leading to this suit. It was the contention of the plaintiff that when the 2nd defendant did the surgery he was negligent which caused the paralysis on her.

In his evidence the 2nd defendant stated that at about 1.30am on 12 July 1982 while he was in his house, Dr. Celine Pereira informed him that the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital with fractured cervical spine and there was also a query of an intra abdominal injury. Dr. Pereira diagnosed this after checking the x-ray. The 2nd defendant was of the opinion that a dislocated facet was more serious than fractured cervical spine. After examining the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant discovered that the plaintiff was suffering from dislocated facets. As such the diagnosis given by Dr. Pereira was wrong. In explaining this the 2nd defendant said that the mistake was made because Dr. Pereira was not conversant with injuries to cervical spine. It is difficult for me to accept