MD NAZMUL v 1. ) GP UNIMEDIC J SDN BHD 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM)
Catchwords
Introduction 1. The Plaintiff applied by way of this Originating Summons (OS) to obtain his medical records from the 2 Defendants. 2. The provision of law relied by the Plaintiff amongst others is Regulation 44 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and other Private healthcare Facilities Regulation 2006 (“health care Regulation”) which stipulates: (1) A patient's medical record is the property of a private healthcare facility or service. (2) No patient's medical record shall be taken out from the private healthcare facility or service except under a court order and when taken out from the private healthcare facility or service under a court order, a copy of the records shall be retained by the private healthcare facility or service and the original records shall be returned to the private healthcare facility or service at the end of the proceedings for which the records were directed to be procured. (3) The licensee or person in charge of the private healthcare facility or service shall ensure that for each admission, each patient's medical record shall have the information as specified in the Sixth Schedule. (4) All entries in a patient's medical record shall be- (a) dated and authenticated by the person who gave the order, provided the care or performed the observation, examination, assessment, treatment or other service to which the entry pertains; and (b) legibly written in ink, typewritten or recorded on a computer terminal which is designed to receive such information and if recorded and stored in a computer, it may be stored on magnetic tapes, discs or other devices suited to the storage of data. (5) All originals or copies of any patient's medical reports received from any other healthcare facility or service shall be filed in the patient's medical record in the private healthcare facility or service. (6) Any person who contravenes subregulation (3), (4) or (5) commits an offence. Conclusion 9. For the above reasons the Court dismisses the OS with a cost of RM3,000.
Practice Areas
Introduction 1. The Plaintiff applied by way of this Originating Summons (OS) to obtain his medical records from the 2 Defendants. 2. The provision of law relied by the Plaintiff amongst others is Regulation 44 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and other Private healthcare Facilities Regulation 2006 (“health care Regulation”) which stipulates: (1) A patient's medical record is the property of a private healthcare facility or service. (2) No patient's medical record shall be taken out from the private healthcare facility or service except under a court order and when taken out from the private healthcare facility or service under a court order, a copy of the records shall be retained by the private healthcare facility or service and the original records shall be returned to the private healthcare facility or service at the end of the proceedings for which the records were directed to be procured. (3) The licensee or person in charge of the private healthcare facility or service shall ensure that for each admission, each patient's medical record shall have the information as specified in the Sixth Schedule. (4) All entries in a patient's medical record shall be- (a) dated and authenticated by the person who gave the order, provided the care or performed the observation, examination, assessment, treatment or other service to which the entry pertains; and (b) legibly written in ink, typewritten or recorded on a computer terminal which is designed to receive such information and if recorded and stored in a computer, it may be stored on magnetic tapes, discs or other devices suited to the storage of data. (5) All originals or copies of any patient's medical reports received from any other healthcare facility or service shall be filed in the patient's medical record in the private healthcare facility or service. (6) Any person who contravenes subregulation (3), (4) or (5) commits an offence. Conclusion 9. For the above reasons the Court dismisses the OS with a cost of RM3,000.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
MD NAZMUL v 1. ) GP UNIMEDIC J SDN BHD 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM) is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated April 20, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncvc-242-01-2025). The case was decided by Akhtar bin Tahir.
Key issues: Introduction.
What was the outcome of MD NAZMUL v 1. ) GP UNIMEDIC J SDN BHD 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM)?
MD NAZMUL v 1. ) GP UNIMEDIC J SDN BHD 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM) is a High Court decision dated April 20, 2025. The case was heard by Akhtar bin Tahir. See the full judgment for details.