The failure to detect an intraocular foreign body and to provide timely treatment by the defendant constitutes medical negligence, leading to serious impairments and damages.

Bhupindar Singh Gurcharan Singh Preet J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff brought an action for medical negligence against Dr Lee Mun Toong, the defendant, an Eye Consultant/Ophthalmologist and Surgeon who attended and treated the plaintiff at the Ipoh Specialist Hospital (ISH), a member of KPJ Healthcare Berhad Group. The plaintiff pleads that due to the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff had been diagnosed with a penetrating left eye injury with an intraocular foreign body (IOFB) and endophthalmitis. Consequently, the plaintiff had to undergo surgery and suffered loss of perfect vision.

Plaintiff's Case

[2] The plaintiff was working as a mechanic at Syarikat Raja & Co On 6 July 2011, while working, he used a hammer to open a part of an engine compressor, whereby a hard object struck his left eye, and it started bleeding. Initially, the plaintiff was brought to a private clinic, but on the doctor's advice, he was taken to ISH. When the plaintiff arrived at ISH, he was taken to the Emergency Department and examined by the defendant.

[3] The plaintiff 'stated, he informed the defendant that "mata saya terkena suatu serpihan objek keras yang memasuki mata saya, sewaktu saya menghentak sebatang besi dan cuba membuka sebuah enjin". On the same day, the defendant performed a minor surgery on the eyelid to suture the wound.

[4] On 7 July 2011, the defendant conducted another surgery under general anesthesia, and the plaintiff's eye was bandaged. The defendant informed the plaintiff that there was no IOFB in the injured eye. The plaintiff was further assured that the eye would heal completely. On the third day (8 July 2011), when the bandage was opened, the plaintiff informed the defendant that his left eye vision was blurry and he was having immense pain in the said eye. After that, the plaintiff was brought to the examination room for a vision test. Accordingly, the defendant said that there was nothing to be worried about. The plaintiff's vision was slightly blurred due to the second surgery, and the defendant assured it would improve after two or three days.

[5] The plaintiff was kept in the ward for almost six days, from 6 to 11 July 2011. He complained about the pain in the left eye to the defendant from 9 to 11 July 2011. The plaintiff was to be discharged on 11 July 2011. He once again complained about the excruciating pain he suffered, even thou