Court affirmed that life expectancy in medical negligence cases must be determined based on individual clinical factors rather than general population studies, impacting future damages.

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff in this case was born in Hospital Kuala Lumpur on 11 February 2010. This action was filed through his mother and litigation representative on 11 January 2023.

[2] In his Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleged professional medical negligence on the part of the defendants as the cause of his having suffered severe brain damage.

[3] The defendants are represented by the Attorney General of Malaysia, whose chambers filed their Statement of Defence and sent a Federal Counsel to appear for them during the trial of this action.

[4] Learned counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the 5th to 9th defendants should not be held liable.

[5] On the issue of liability of the remaining defendants, the plaintiff called a senior obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) consultant (Dr Milton Lum) to give expert evidence.

[6] For the defendants, only the 3rd defendant, namely Dr Tan Chong Seong, testified as a witness of facts on the issue of liability. The 4th defendant Dato' Dr Ravindran Jegasothy did not attend court to give evidence. No expert was called by the defendant to testify on the issue of liability. The defendants did call an expert witness to give evidence on the issue of life expectancy and quantum.

[7] In fairness to the 3rd and 4th defendants respectively, I ought to mention two facts about them at the outset. First, the 3rd defendant was a young medical officer in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) Department in Hospital Kuala Lumpur at the material time in February 2010. He was not a surgeon then but managed to perform an emergency surgery known as Lower Section Caesarean Section on the plaintiff's mother to deliver the plaintiff into this world. Secondly, the 3rd defendant testified that the 4th defendant — who was the Head of the O&G Department at the material time — was unable to attend court to testify at the trial of this action because he had to undergo brain surgery recently to remove a brain tumour.

[8] The 2nd defendant was only a houseman at the material time. There is no evidence of any negligence on the part of the 2nd defendant. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the plaintiff has proven that the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant were negligent on 11 February 2010. Since two doctors who were serving in a government hospital are found liable, this court holds the Government of Malaysia (the 1st defendant) vicariously liable.

[9] As there is no appeal filed by the defendants, I shall not discuss the issue of liability in great detail. Instead, I shall explain in detail my reasons for accepting the defendants' expert evidence that, based on her clinical experience as well as medical literature, the maximum life expectancy of the plaintiff is 29 years.

[10] Each side had called an expert witness to testify on the life expectancy of the plaintiff and the amenities that he will require in the future. A table showing the items and quantum claimed by the plaintiff's learned counsel and the learned Federal Counsel's response respectively shall be attached hereto. The amount that this court is awarding as well as my reasons for arriving at the respective amount or for awarding a lesser amount or declining to make an award, are stated in the first column on the right of the table.

[11] There are many items for which this court is awarding as claimed by the plaintiff. However, some of the items claimed are, with respect, unjustified and/or exaggerated. Thus, this court is constrained to either refuse to award or reduce the quantum to be awarded.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[12] On the issue of liability, the plaintiff's main contention that the period known as Decision