JUDGMENT

S Nantha Balan JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are 2 appeals before us - Civil Appeal No: B-02 (NCvC)(W)-1482-09/2023 ("Appeal 1482") and Civil Appeal No: B-02 (NCvC) (W)-1483-09/2023 ("Appeal 1483"). The appeals arise out of a medical negligence claim by the Plaintiffs against a private hospital and the medical officer in the Accident and Emergency Department of the hospital at the material time. The Plaintiffs' claim was by way of High Court at Klang via Suit No: Bl-22NCVC-12-05/2022. The Plaintiffs' claim was allowed. The High Court allowed various heads of damages, and both sides have appealed to this Court . The appeals are against the decision of the Learned Judge ("the Judge") of the High Court in Klang delivered on 15 August 2023 after a full trial. The decision of the High Court is reported as Navin Sharma Karam Chand & Anor v. Bukit Tinggi Hospital Sdn Bhd & Anor.

Parties

[2] For convenience and consistency, the parties shall be referred to by their titles in the action in the High Court . The Appellants in Appeal 1482 shall be referred to collectively as "the Defendants" and individually as "D1" and "D2". The Appellants in Appeal 1483 shall be referred to collectively as "the Plaintiffs" and individually as "P1" and "P2". Where necessary, we may refer to Appeal 1482 as "the Defendants' appeal" and Appeal 1483 as "the Plaintiffs' appeal". D1 is the owner and operator of a private hospital known as Bukit Tinggi Medical Centre (previously known as Manipal Hospital) ("the Hospital").

[3] The action in the High Court was filed by the Plaintiffs as Administrators of the Estate of Suman Rampal ("deceased") for claims under s 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956 ("CLA"), and on behalf of the dependents of the deceased for loss of dependency under s 7 of the CLA. P1 was the husband of the deceased. P2 was the sister of the deceased.

[4] The appeals are confined to the issue of quantum as the Defendants had accepted the High Court 's finding on liability for negligence, which resulted in the death of the deceased, who was 41 years old at the time of her death. However, although liability for negligence is not contested in the appeals before us, we think that it is nevertheless necessary to set out the background facts (briefly) to provide some context and to allow for a better appreciation of the issues relating to the heads of damages which have been raised and contested in these appeals.

Background

[5] On 13 May 2019 at about 4.10 am, the deceased was taken to the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) of the Hospital because of severe abdominal pain, which she had been experiencing 2 days before being taken to the Hospital. She had a history of Immunoglobulin A nephropathy and was on long-term steroid (prednisolone). The deceased was seen by D2. She complained that her pain was getting worse and was mostly felt on the right flank of her abdomen.

[6] The deceased gave a good description of her condition and also gave a complete history of her illness. She told D2 of her urinary tract infection (UTI), which she had suffered some weeks earlier but which had resolved. She also gave a history of receiving antibiotics for the UTI and produced the blood and urine investigation results undertaken at the clinic from which she had received treatment. She also described the type of pain she was experiencing and was able to distinguish her current pain from the pain she had experienced when she had the UTI.

[7] She informed D2 that the current pain was one-sided and described it as "colicky in character". The pain that the deceased was experiencing was, in fact, "endometriotic colic" in nature and pointed to a gynecological cause. The deceased also gave a history of an 8cm ovarian cyst. D2 performed a trans-abdominal ultrasound scan and noted "a right ovarian mass? Cyst size 8 cm". As a matter of fact, the "8cm" cyst described by D2 was a wrong finding in terms of its size. The cyst was in fact, very much bigger, and the correct measur