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

2026 MarsdenLR 870

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
MUHAMMAD ALIFF IKHMAL JEFFRY – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH HOSPITAL KOTA TINGGI JOHOR BAHRU & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-21NCvC-5-02-2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Hardeep Singh Mann ,Respondent Advocate: Suhana Sabil,Nur Najihah Hamidi

JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is a civil action for damages arising from medical negligence. Liability has been admitted by the defendants. The sole matter for the court's determination is the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

[2] The trial began on 23 September 2024 and 17 January 2025 before Justice Nurulhuda Noraini binti Mohd Nor, with PW1 and proceeded before me upon her ladyship's transfer to Kuala Lumpur High court. I concluded the trial on 11 and 12 December 2025 with PW2 and defendants' witness. In total 3 witnesses testified for the parties as follows:

(a) Plaintiff's Witnesses

(b) Defendants' Witness

[3] Parties filed their written submissions and bundle of authorities and relied solely on the submissions. The court now delivers its decision based on the cause papers, record of proceedings, CRT and parties' submissions and bundle of authorities.

Backgrounds

[4] The plaintiff, Muhammad Aliff Ikhmal bin Jeffry, was 19 years of age at the material time. He was a national-level cricket athlete, having been selected to represent Malaysia and trained at Sekolah Sukan Bukit Jalil, one of the nation's premier sports schools. The plaintiff now stands before this court at the age of 26, having lost his right leg above the knee as a direct consequence of the medical negligence of the defendants.

[5] The defendants are the Directors of Hospital Kota Tinggi (D1) and Hospital Sultanah Aminah (D3); the treating doctors Dr Muhammad Feroz bin Hassan (D2) and Dr Faisal bin Arshad (D4); the surgeon Dr Gunaseelan a/l Ponnusamy (D5); and the Government of Malaysia (D6).

[6] On 22 February 2018, the Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident and was brought to the Accident and Emergency Department of Hospital Kota Tinggi (HKT). He presented with severe right leg pain. D2 examined the plaintiff, ordered an X-ray which showed no fracture, diagnosed soft tissue injury and discharged the plaintiff with two days' medical leave.

[7] On 24 February 2018, the plaintiff returned to HKT with worsening pain and swelling. Clinical examination revealed absent dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses, capillary refill time of 3 seconds and cold peripheries, classic signs of acute limb ischaemia. He was referred urgently to Hospital Sultan Ismail, where Doppler ultrasound and CT angiogram confirmed thrombosis of the distal right femoral and popliteal arteries. The plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA).

[8] At HSA, the plaintiff underwent emergency arterial repair with graft, fasciotomy and external fixation. Despite these interventions, gangrene developed and on 7 March 2018, the plaintiff underwent right above-knee amputation.

[9] A further critical failure was identified at trial. Following the amputation, the plaintiff was never referred to the Rehabilitation Department at HSA or HSI. The defendants' own expert, DW1, confirmed under cross examination that the standard protocol requires immediate inpatient referral to the rehabilitation specialist following above-knee amputation. He acknowledged that in this case, such referral appears to have been overlooked ("mungkin terlepas pandang"). The plaintiff attended only one follow-up at HSA on 15 August 2018.

[10] As a direct consequence, the plaintiff, now six years post-amputation, has not fully adapted to a prosthetic limb. He remains unemployed. His national sporting career has ended. At the age of 26, he attributes difficulty in personal relationships to his sense of physical inadequacy.

Preliminary Issues

[11] The defendants raise, in their written submissions, the argument that the entire claim is barred by res judicata and/or estoppel by reason of a consent judgment recorded in Sessions court Kota Tinggi, Case No.: JH-A53KJ-138-11-2018 (the "MSKT suit"), in which the plaintiff settled his claim against the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident on 28 August 2019 for RM120,000.00 as full and final settlement.

[12] The defendants

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top