Selvaraju A/l Ponniah [Membawa Tindakan Ini Di Dalam Kapasiti Diri Sendiri Dan Sebagai Pentadbir Sah Estet Serta Sebagai Tanggungan Jothiletchumy A/p Kani Govindar, Si Mati ("Si Mati")] v 1. ) Pengarah Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah 2. ) Doktor-Doktor Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Yang Belum Dikenali 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
ba-21ncvc-47-03-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 March 2025 • BA-21NCvC-47-03/2021 • 29 min read
38 cases cited
(0 SG, 38 foreign)
Outcome
I therefore allow the pleaded sum of RM14,300 for this item of damages. [20] There is no need to act like a bookkeeper especially when one is suffering from depression over the loss of a baby, and bearing in mind the cultural local context in Malaysia that both the appellants are Hindus, it is more probable than not that they would have undergone such customary rites.
Catchwords
This case stems from a tragic sequence of events, beginning with a devastating road traffic accident that left the Plaintiff’s late wife with life-altering injuries. She sustained multiple fractures that necessitated surgical intervention with implants. Tragically, before the planned procedure could take place, she succumbed to her condition on 25 March 2018, with her death attributed to Fat Embolism — a complication often linked to traumatic fractures. The Plaintiff’s principal point of contention is that his wife’s untimely death was a direct consequence of the Defendants’ negligence. However, the Defendants have firmly denied any wrongdoing, disputing both negligence and liability in this heartrending matter. In determining whether negligence has been established, the key issues for consideration in this action may be reduced to the following: (i) Whether there was a delay in treatment to the deceased. (ii) Whether the delay, if any, caused the death of the deceased. (iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the claim for damages under sections 7 and 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (38)
UK (2)
[1972] 3 All ER 1008 [1987] 2 All ER 909
MY (36)
[1962] 1 MLJ 220 [1973] 1 MLJ 230 [1982] 1 MLJ 128 [1983] 2 MLJ 324 [1988] 2 CLJ 238 [1988] 3 MLJ 332 [1994] 3 AMR 1991 [1994] 3 CLJ 687 [1994] 3 MLJ 233 [1996] 1 CLJ 615 [1996] 2 AMR 1594 [1996] 4 MLJ 7 [2001] 4 CLJ 599 [2001] 6 MLJ 669 [2007] 1 AMR 621 [2007] 1 CLJ 229 [2007] 1 MLJ 593 [2008] 4 AMR 405 [2008] 4 MLJ 716 [2008] 5 MLRH 220 [2011] 13 MLRH 901 [2011] MLJU 1257 [2012] 3 MLJ 379 [2012] 5 MLRH 472 [2015] 1 CLJ 825 [2018] 1 MLJ 784 [2022] 10 MLJ 469 [2022] 3 AMR 726 [2022] 5 MLRH 675 [2022] 7 CLJ 565 [2024] 5 CLJ 734 [2024] AMEJ 0723 [2024] AMEJ 2831 [2024] MLJU 3357 [2024] MLJU 732 [2025] 2 MLRH 736
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-21ncvc-47-03-2021)