1. ) MOHD MAHADI BIN ZAINUDIN 2. ) NOR ILLIYIN BINTI MOHD BASRI 1. ) DR. KAMARULHAZIQ BIN BAHARUDDIN 2. ) DR. AHMAD FAHMI BIN BAHARUDDIN 3. ) DR. MUHAMMAD RAHMAT BIN YUSOFF 4. ) DR. TOH SHU JIUN 5. ) JURURAWAT WAN MARIAH BINTI WAN MOHD RAHI

1. ) MOHD MAHADI BIN ZAINUDIN 2. ) NOR ILLIYIN BINTI MOHD BASRI 1. ) DR. KAMARULHAZIQ BIN BAHARUDDIN 2. ) DR. AHMAD FAHMI BIN BAHARUDDIN 3. ) DR. MUHAMMAD RAHMAT BIN YUSOFF 4. ) DR. TOH SHU JIUN 5. ) JURURAWAT WAN MARIAH BINTI WAN MOHD RAHI

On a balance of probabilities the Court accepted the defendants' affidavits that certain requested documents did not exist and therefore could not be ordered produced. The Court found that production of documents that are in defendants' possession (the 2nd Plaintiff's and deceased's full treatment records per paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) and parts of paragraph 2(e) — blood test results, ECG and x-ray of the deceased) was necessary for the fair disposal of the cause and ordered production. Production was to be effected via official letter; other contested items (Investigation Committee minutes, ex-gratia meeting minutes/notes, certain ultrasounds, post-mortem report where none exists) were...

Citation
AB-21NCvC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (father and Legal Representative of Deceased): Mohd Mahadi bin Zainuddin; Plaintiff (mother and Legal Representative of Deceased): Nor Illiyin binti Mohd Basri; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Kamarulhaziq bin Baharuddin; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Ahmad Fahmi bin Baharuddin; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Muhammad Rahmat bin Yusoff; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Toh Shu Jiun; Defendant Nurse: Jururawat Wan Mariah binti Wan Mohd Rahim; Defendant Nurse: Jururawat Azimun binti Adenan; Defendant Nurse: Jururawat Lim Siew Kong; Defendant Nurse: Jururawat Nor Azian binti Puteh; Defendant Director, Hospital Gerik: Pengarah Hospital Gerik; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Joanne Nga Dion Mei; Defendant Doctor: Dr. Poogundran a/l Pannerrelvan; Defendant Director, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun: Pengarah Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh; Defendant Government of Malaysia: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Case Number
AB-21NCvC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (medical Negligence/ Wrongful Death) / Pre Trial Discovery Application Under Order 24 Rule 3, Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Application allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Discovery, Production of Documents, Relevance and Necessity, Privilege, Access to Medical Records, Post Mortem Consent, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Evidence Discovery Production of Documents Relevance and Necessity Privilege Access to Medical Records +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Mahadi bin Zainuddin

Plaintiff (father and Legal Representative of Deceased)

Nor Illiyin binti Mohd Basri

Plaintiff (mother and Legal Representative of Deceased)

Dr. Kamarulhaziq bin Baharuddin

Defendant Doctor

Dr. Ahmad Fahmi bin Baharuddin

Defendant Doctor

Dr. Muhammad Rahmat bin Yusoff

Defendant Doctor

Dr. Toh Shu Jiun

Defendant Doctor

Jururawat Wan Mariah binti Wan Mohd Rahim

Defendant Nurse

Jururawat Azimun binti Adenan

Defendant Nurse

Jururawat Lim Siew Kong

Defendant Nurse

Jururawat Nor Azian binti Puteh

Defendant Nurse

Pengarah Hospital Gerik

Defendant Director, Hospital Gerik

Dr. Joanne Nga Dion Mei

Defendant Doctor

Dr. Poogundran a/l Pannerrelvan

Defendant Doctor

Pengarah Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh

Defendant Director, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun

Kerajaan Malaysia

Defendant Government of Malaysia

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (medical Negligence/ Wrongful Death) / Pre Trial Discovery Application Under Order 24 Rule 3, Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed documents exist and are in defendants' possession
  2. 2 Whether requested documents are relevant and necessary for fair disposal under O.24 r.13 ROC
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the Court accepted the defendants' affidavits that certain requested documents did not exist and therefore could not be ordered produced. The Court found that production of documents that are in defendants' possession (the 2nd Plaintiff's and deceased's full treatment records per paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) and parts of paragraph 2(e) — blood test results, ECG and x-ray of the deceased) was necessary for the fair disposal of the cause and ordered production. Production was to be effected via official letter; other contested items (Investigation Committee minutes, ex-gratia meeting minutes/notes, certain ultrasounds, post-mortem report where none exists) were...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Defendants ordered to produce copies of the 2nd Plaintiff's full treatment and medication records and the deceased's full treatment and medication records (paras 2(c) and 2(d) of the Notice of Application)
  • Defendants ordered to produce parts of paragraph 2(e): blood test results, ECG and x-ray films of the deceased that are in their possession