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

2025 MarsdenLR 1593

HIGH COURT (KUALA TERENGGANU)
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED, J
Ahmad Thaqif Amzar bin Ahmad Huzairi (claiming through his mother and legal representative Majdah bt Mohd Yusof) – Plaintiff
Versus
Kuala Terengganu Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd & Ors – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO TA-22NCVC-33-09 OF 2018



Advocates:
(Azman, Wan Helmi & Assoc) for the first and second defendants.
(Peguam Kanan Persekutuan, Jabatan Peguam Negara) for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, 11th and 12th defendants.

The court established a high standard of care for medical professionals and emphasized timely intervention in medical emergencies, finding liability for negligence in failure to secure necessary treatment.

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence - Standard of Care - Plaintiff's Claim - The plaintiff suffered irreversible brain damage due to negligence by the defendants who failed to provide adequate medical treatment timely. The court found that the second defendant breached their duty of care by not adequately advising the plaintiff’s parents on the seriousness of the condition and failing to record necessary medical details. (Paras 76-78, 104-107)

(B) Liability and Vicarious Liability - The first and third defendants were found vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees, failing to meet their duty of care, with systemic hospital failures also contributing to the plaintiff's injuries. (Paras 99-100) Facts of the Case: The plaintiff was treated multiple times for a fever and neck swelling but failed to receive timely care, leading to severe complications. He is now fully dependent on others due to brain damage. (Paras 5-24)

Findings of Court:
The court awarded damages, finding the defendants negligent and responsible for the irreversible condition of the plaintiff. (Par 155)

Issues: The key issues were the adequacy of medical records, the appropriateness of advice given to the parents, and the timeliness of securing the plaintiff's airway. (Paras 21, 25, 90)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the Bolam test regarding medical negligence and emphasized the need for timely intervention in emergency situations. (Paras 76-77, 90)

Result: The plaintiff was awarded specific sums for damages, with a deduction for contributory negligence. (Paras 156)

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's severe condition arose from negligence. (Para 1 , 5 , 24)
2. claim based on delays and negligence by defendants. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

Abdul Wahab Mohamed J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is an action filed by the Plaintiff, Ahmad Thaqif Amzar bin Ahmad Huzairi through his mother and legal representative Majdah binti Mohd Yusof (PW1) claiming that the Plaintiff had suffered severe and irreversible brain damage as a result of the Defendants negligence conduct.

[2]The Plaintiff had in the present case called the following witnesses:-

(i)the mother and litigation representative of the Plaintiff Puan Majdah binti Mohd Yusof (SP1);

(ii)the liability expert, consultant otorhinolaryngologist Professor Datuk Paduka Dr Balwant Singh Gendeh (SP2);

(iii)the quantum expert, consultant rehabilitation physician Dr Kavitha Uma Ratnalingam (SP3); and

(iv)the father of the Plaintiff Encik Ahmad Huzairi bin Ali (SP4).

[3]The 1st and 2nd Defendants had called the following witnesses:-

(i)the 2nd Defendant, Dr Zainal Rashid bin Abdullah (SD8(D2)); and

(ii)his liability expert, emergency & trauma physician Dr Mahathar Abd Wahab (SD9(D1)).

[4]The 3rd to 12th Defendants witnesses are as follows:-

(i)the 8th Defendant, Dr Khairuddin bin Ismail (SD1(D8));

(ii)the 4th Defendant, Dr Zaidatul Akmal binti Othman (SD2(D4));

(iii)the 6th Defendant, Dr Zul Akmar binti Zakaria (SD3(D6));

(iv)the 11th Defendant, Dr Rabiatul Aida binti Ramli (SD4(D11));

(v)the 10th Defendant, Dr Mastural binti Mohamed (SD5(D10));

(vi)the 12th Defendant, Dr Abdul Karim Othman (SD6(D12));

(vii)the 7th Defendant, Dr Ahmad Mardzuki bin Ibrahim (SD7(D7));

(viii)the 9th Defendant, Dr Nik Nabihah binti Nik Razin (SD11(D9));

(ix)the 5th Defendant, Dr Muhammad Fathil bin Karim alias Kasim (SD10(D5));

(x)their liability expert, otorhinolaryngologist Dr Norzi binti Gazali (SD12);

(xi)their quantum expert, rehabilitation physician Dr Rahimah binti Nawi (SD13)

BACKGROUND FACTS

[5]The Plaintiff was suffering from a fever and a swelling on his neck and was brought to the 1st Defendant’s Hospital (“KTSH”) and was treated by the 2nd Defendant on 30.8.2011, the 2nd Defendant had diagnosed the Plaintiff with the following condition:-

(i)a fever of 39.8°C;

(ii)swollen Cervical Lymph Node; and

(iii)Lymphadenitis inflamed.

[6]Upon examination, the 2nd Defendant had prescribed the Plaintiff with the following medicine:-

(i)Paracetemol syrup;

(ii)Brufen syrup; and

(iii)Unasyn syrup.

[7]On 1.9.2011, the Plaintiff’s parents had brought him to KTSH for a 2nd time (“2nd Visit”) and the Plaintiff was again examined by the 2nd Defendant. Upon examination by the 2nd Defendant, it was discovered that the Plaintiff’s temperature had dropped to 37.8°C and that the Cervical Swelling had increased in size.

[8]The 2nd Defendant had advised for the Plaintiff to be warded at KTSH to be referred to the pediatrician/ENT Specialist, but the said admission was refused by the Plaintiff’s parents and the Plaintiff was brought home instead.

[9]Five days later, PW1 had brought the Plaintiff to Klinik Engku Shaikh where a referral letter was issued to refer the Plaintiff to Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah (HSNZ).

[10]The Plaintiff’s parents had on 5.9.2011 at 11.15 p.m. brought the Plaintiff to HSNZ where the Plaintiff was attended by a medical officer at HSNZ at 12.49 a.m.

[11]At about 1:47 am on 6 September 2011, Thaqif was seen by the house officer Dr Zaidatul, the 4th Defendant. She prescribed medications and noted that his pulse rate was 112 beats per minute.

[12]At about 8:52 am, the 4th Defendant saw Thaqif again. The plan was for Thaqif to undergo an examination of the neck and an X-ray examination.

[13]At about 9:11 am, Thaqif was seen by yet another house officer Dr Zul Akmar, the 6th Defendant. She had incorrectly noted that Thaqif had “right neck swelling”.

[14]At about 9:54 am, Thaqif was seen by the 6th Defendant and Dr Fathil, the 5th Defendant. The X-ray investigation was undertaken and a plan was made

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