A Defunct Clinic, a Phantom Application and RM589,361 That Vanished into a Doctor’s Personal Account

The Sessions Court at Shah Alam has delivered a clear message on the misuse of Malaysia’s National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme: those who exploit public-health systems for personal gain will face full civil liability, while innocent professionals dragged into the net deserve vindication and compensation.

In ProtectHealth Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v Dr. Eddy Chiew Kui Ann & Anor (Civil Suit No. BA-B53-2-02/2023), the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant for fraud and unjust enrichment, ordered him to repay the full RM589,361, and awarded aggravated and exemplary damages. Simultaneously it dismissed every claim against the second defendant and allowed his counterclaim, underscoring that the law will not tolerate the cynical hijacking of a doctor’s identity to plunder pandemic-era public funds.

The Shadow of “Klinik Chin” and a Nationwide Vaccine Roll-out

ProtectHealth, the government-linked agency tasked with disbursing funds under the PICK programme, approved what appeared to be a legitimate application from Klinik Chin in Kuching. The documents submitted included the clinic’s registration certificate, the second defendant’s practising certificates and—crucially—bank-account details that belonged not to the clinic but to Dr. Eddy Chiew Kui Ann.

Over three months in 2022 the clinic supposedly administered 31,019 vaccine doses. Twenty-four separate payments totalling RM589,361 landed in the first defendant’s personal RHB account. When ProtectHealth tried to contact the clinic to present an award for “Outstanding Kids Vaccination Contribution”, the trail went cold. Investigations later revealed the clinic had closed years earlier, no vaccines had been ordered or administered, and the recipient list was fabricated.

The second defendant, Dr. Chin Wei Horng, only learned of the scheme when ProtectHealth called him. He immediately disclosed that he had sold the clinic long before the pandemic and had never applied to join PICK. He lodged police reports and cooperated fully—facts the court found “wholly consistent with innocence”.

How the Plaintiff Built Its Case Without Direct Proof

Faced with a defendant who elected not to testify or call any witnesses, the court relied on the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence:

• A defunct clinic used as the vehicle for registration;
• Falsified supporting documents uploaded into the Vaccine Control System;
• Every ringgit of programme money routed to the first defendant’s personal account;
• Complete silence when contacted, followed by retention of the funds even after investigations began.

Drawing on principles from R v Exall and local authorities such as FGV Holdings Bhd v Mohd Isa , the court held that fraud need not be proved by direct evidence. The totality of the circumstances “irresistibly” pointed to the first defendant. His failure to explain why public monies entered and stayed in his account triggered an adverse inference under Section 114(g) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 .

The Second Defendant: Victim, Not Conspirator

The court was emphatic that mere historical association with the clinic could not found liability. ProtectHealth’s own witnesses admitted they had no evidence linking Dr. Chin to the forged application or the fabricated claims. On the contrary, his prompt disclosure had helped uncover the fraud.

Consequently the plaintiff’s claims against him—for conspiracy, fraud and unjust enrichment—were dismissed with costs. His counterclaim against ProtectHealth for negligence failed because the agency owed him no duty of care in the administration of a nationwide public-health programme. However, his counterclaim against the first defendant succeeded on the tort of deceit, resulting in awards of RM30,000 general damages, RM50,000 aggravated damages and RM50,000 exemplary damages.

Key Observations from the Judgment

> “When viewed cumulatively, these circumstances lead irresistibly to the inference of a deliberate scheme to defraud the Plaintiff.”

> “The First Defendant retained the said monies… there was a complete absence of any report or explanation from the First Defendant despite continuous receipt of substantial payments over a period of three months.”

> “The Second Defendant, rather than being implicated, in fact assisted in uncovering the fraudulent scheme.”

> “Such conduct is not merely disappointing; it demonstrates a complete disregard for public welfare at a time of national difficulty and urgent public need.”

Final Orders and Wider Implications

The court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of RM589,361 together with RM100,000 aggravated damages and RM100,000 exemplary damages, plus RM50,000 costs. The second defendant received RM20,000 costs against the plaintiff and a further RM20,000 (plus his own damages) from the first defendant. All sums carry 5 % interest from the date of judgment.

Beyond the monetary awards lies a broader message: during a national emergency, those who cynically exploit emergency procurement systems—especially by impersonating innocent professionals—will face both restitutionary and punitive consequences. The judgment also signals that courts will protect the reputations of medical practitioners whose identities are stolen for fraudulent purposes, while refusing to impose unrealistic verification burdens on agencies administering time-critical public programmes.

The case therefore stands as both a warning to would-be fraudsters and a measure of reassurance to honest practitioners that the law can still distinguish the architect of a scam from its unwitting victim.