NAYYER NAVEED KHAN v 1. ) AIA HEALTH SERVICES SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIA BHD. 3. ) AIA PUBLIC TAKAFUL BHD.
Catchwords
By way of Enclosure 6, the defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 2 October 2024 under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). In addition, this application is being made under Order 92 rule 4 of the ROC 2012. This suit involves a doctor at a private hospital suing a group of companies that provide insurance services and benefits for their customers. The plaintiff is essentially seeking declarations that the act of removing his name from a list of participating specialists, for which the defendants granted a cashless facility, had no basis, was made mala fide, and was invalid. As a consequence, the plaintiff is seeking damages and loss of profits. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the cashless facility did not benefit the plaintiff as a participating specialist but was intended to benefit their customers who were the plaintiff's patients. As a result, the plaintiff has no rights to the cashless facility in the manner he is trying to argue now. As a result of analysing the parties' arguments, the Court cannot in any way identify a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants since there is no sufficient proximity between them to create this type of relationship. There was never any voluntary assumption of responsibility by the defendants in that regard. Consequently, the Court finds that the plaintiff's interest in the Guarantee Letter Facility does not create sufficient legal proximity. The plaintiff was neither a patient nor a customer of the defendants to bring about this situation. He was only indirectly benefitting from the GL Facility offered to his patients. Here, the plaintiff was only dealing with his patients. In this aspect, sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendants was not present. As a result, there can be no direct duty of care arising out of these facts. In light of the above, Enclosure 6 is allowed with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur.
Practice Areas
By way of Enclosure 6, the defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 2 October 2024 under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). In addition, this application is being made under Order 92 rule 4 of the ROC 2012. This suit involves a doctor at a private hospital suing a group of companies that provide insurance services and benefits for their customers. The plaintiff is essentially seeking declarations that the act of removing his name from a list of participating specialists, for which the defendants granted a cashless facility, had no basis, was made mala fide, and was invalid. As a consequence, the plaintiff is seeking damages and loss of profits. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the cashless facility did not benefit the plaintiff as a participating specialist but was intended to benefit their customers who were the plaintiff's patients. As a result, the plaintiff has no rights to the cashless facility in the manner he is trying to argue now. As a result of analysing the parties' arguments, the Court cannot in any way identify a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants since there is no sufficient proximity between them to create this type of relationship. There was never any voluntary assumption of responsibility by the defendants in that regard. Consequently, the Court finds that the plaintiff's interest in the Guarantee Letter Facility does not create sufficient legal proximity. The plaintiff was neither a patient nor a customer of the defendants to bring about this situation. He was only indirectly benefitting from the GL Facility offered to his patients. Here, the plaintiff was only dealing with his patients. In this aspect, sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendants was not present. As a result, there can be no direct duty of care arising out of these facts. In light of the above, Enclosure 6 is allowed with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur.
Case Significance
NAYYER NAVEED KHAN v 1. ) AIA HEALTH SERVICES SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIA BHD. 3. ) AI... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 6, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-631-10-2024). The case was decided by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan.
What was the outcome of NAYYER NAVEED KHAN v 1. ) AIA HEALTH SERVICES SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIA BHD. 3. ) AI...?
NAYYER NAVEED KHAN v 1. ) AIA HEALTH SERVICES SDN. BHD. 2. ) AIA BHD. 3. ) AI... is a High Court decision dated July 6, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan. See the full judgment for details.