SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6069

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
JUWARIYAH SAL HAMID @ AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
DATO DR SHAHRUDIN MOHD DUN – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-23NCvC-10-03/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Ramakrishna Tharini ,Respondent Advocate: Anit Kaur Randhawa

The standard of care in medical negligence follows the Bolam principle, requiring that a medical practitioner meets the expectations of a responsible body of medical professionals and not engage in practices deemed unreasonable.

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence - Bolam Principle - The plaintiff filed a claim alleging treatment shortcomings leading to bile duct stricture post-surgery. Court ruled that standard care was upheld. Defendants' expert testified adequate management was provided, and risks were appropriately disclosed. (Paras 32-34, 91-94)

(B) Follow-up Care - The court examined if the defendant's follow-up post-surgery reflected standard practices. Findings support that no breach of duty occurred in follow-up protocols even under challenged circumstances. (Paras 35, 54, 78-90)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff underwent a series of abdominal surgeries for gallstone disease, which was initially treated but led to later complications. Plaintiff claimed negligence due to lack of follow-up care and investigative procedures post-stent removal.

Findings of Court:
Defendants met standard medical practices; the plaintiff's claims were dismissed based on expert testimony and holistic assessments of care.

Issues: Clinical justification for surgeries, adequacy of postoperative follow-up, necessity of cholangiogram after stent removal, and whether defendant’s standard of care fell below expectations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the importance of the Bolam test, highlighting that the standard of care is judged against what reasonable practitioners would do and established that expert opinions varied but did not indicate negligence.

Result: Claim dismissed. Costs awarded to the defendant.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim dismissed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. material facts presented. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. subsequent treatment details. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. plaintiff's key arguments outlined. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. defendant's position and rebuttals. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
6. legal principles governing negligence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
7. issues identified for resolution. (Para 35 , 36)
8. expert witnesses and opinions summarized. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. assessment of standard of care. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
10. court's reasoning and conclusions. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)
11. final decision and order. (Para 96 , 97)
Hazizah Kassim JC:

A. Introduction

[1] The plaintiff filed a claim for medical negligence against the defendant.

[2] On 6 February 2025, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs following the full trial.

[3] This outlines the rationale for the decision.

B. Salient Facts

[4] This the Court refers to the material facts presented by the plaintiff's counsel in their written submissions.

[5] The plaintiff, Juwariyah binti Sal Hamid @ Ahmad, is an employee of the TNB Repair & Maintenance Sdn Bhd as Finance Manager.

[6] The defendant, Dato' Dr Shahrudin bin Mohd Dun, is a Consultant General Surgeon practicing at KPJ Selangor Specialist Centre (KPJ Selangor).

[7] The plaintiff, who was suffering from recurrent abdominal pain, consulted the defendant at KPJ Selangor on 24 May 2017. The defendant examined the plaintiff and noted tenderness in the plaintiff's right hypochondrial region. A CT scan conducted on 22 May 2017 revealed that the defendant diagnosed gallstone disease and recommended that the plaintiff undergo a laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove the plaintiff's gallbladder.

[8] On 25 May 2017, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the first operation) at KPJ Selangor, performed by the defendant. The plaintiff was discharged from KPJ Selangor on 28 May 2017.

[9] The plaintiff was readmitted to KPJ Selangor on 31 May 2017 due to symptoms indicating obstructive jaundice. Dr Lim Yaw Tzong, a Consultant General Surgeon, performed an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) the following day. The ERCP was unsuccessful, and Dr Lim could not cannulate the common bile duct.

[10] On 7 June 2017, the plaintiff underwent surgery to explore the cystic duct and common bile duct, which was performed by the defendant (the second operation).

[11] Based on the defendant's report, a one cm-sized impacted cystic duct stone was compressing the common bile duct. The stone was removed, and a stent was placed in situ in the common bile duct.

[12] The plaintiff was discharged from KPJ Selangor on 13 June 2017. On 23 August 2017, the defendant removed the stent via an endoscopic daycare procedure.

[13] On 8 September 2017, during a follow-up appointment with the defendant, the plaintiff's liver function test results were normal, and she reported no complaints. No additional appointment dates were scheduled after that date.

2020

[14] In early April 2020, the plaintiff began experiencing pain in the tip of her right shoulder and the upper right quadrant of her abdomen. Sensing that something was not quite right, she decided to undergo a liver function blood test at a general practitioner (GP) clinic, which revealed elevated liver enzymes.

[15] The plaintiff was referred to a Consultant Physician and Gastroenterologist, Dr Shanthi Palaniappan (Dr Shanthi) at Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur (Pantai Hospital) for further management.

[16] On 16 April 2020, the plaintiff consulted Dr Shanthi at Pantai Hospital KL, who noted that the plaintiff had complained of pain in the right shoulder tip and the right upper quadrant of the abdomen for two weeks. Dr Shanthi ordered a CT scan of the plaintiff's abdomen and pelvis, which was performed on the same day. The scan revealed a mildly dilated common bile duct of 5 to 6 mm.

[17] Following this consultation,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top