Evelyn Sharmini a/p Mariasoosay Nathan v 1. ) Yogaraj Ramananthan 2. ) Sentosa Medical Centre Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates liability for breach of the duty of informed consent and negligent surgical treatment, together with a hospital's own liability for organisational and credentialing failures, and the disciplined evidence-based assessment of the heads of damage.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns a medical-negligence claim arising from an elective abdominal surgery and the liability of both the operating surgeon and the hospital. The plaintiff, who had a history of endometriosis and fibroids and had undergone earlier surgeries by the first defendant, underwent a further elective abdominal procedure performed by the first defendant, a surgeon, at the second defendant's hospital in July 2018. She sued both defendants, alleging breach of the duty to provide informed consent, in that she had not been adequately advised of alternative treatment options or warned of the material risks of the surgery; breach of the duty to diagnose and treat appropriately, the surgery having led to bowel injuries and complications; and, against the hospital, direct and vicarious liability for organisational failures and a lack of proper credentialing of the surgeon. The plaintiff suffered bowel perforations requiring further surgeries, developed fistulas and required colostomy bags, with a prolonged and difficult recovery. After a full trial the court found the claim established and allowed it against both defendants, awarding damages of RM917,710 against the first defendant and RM50,000 against the second defendant, together with costs, while carefully scrutinising the individual heads of special damages and disallowing those, such as the value of care provided by family members and certain future costs, that were not supported by adequate evidence. The court awarded getting-up fees and out-of-pocket costs against the defendants. The judgment is a useful illustration of liability for breach of the duty of informed consent and negligent surgical treatment, and of a hospital's own liability for organisational and credentialing failures, alongside the disciplined assessment of the heads of damage on the evidence. The decision also underscores that a hospital may bear its own direct liability, distinct from its vicarious liability for a practitioner, where organisational and credentialing shortcomings are established, and that a claimant must prove each head of loss with evidence rather than assertion.