Nuur Iman Binti Rahmattullah Khan 1. ) Ampang Puteri Hospital Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Nurul Azwa Bin Mohamad Noor

Nuur Iman Binti Rahmattullah Khan 1. ) Ampang Puteri Hospital Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Nurul Azwa Bin Mohamad Noor

Court held PDCT was an acceptable treatment for the plaintiff's condition (deferential to medical opinion), but the second defendant failed to advise the plaintiff of material risks (inadequate informed consent). The bending of the needle was a known risk and abandoning the procedure was prudent; there was no evidence that the PDCT caused the C5/6 fusion (causation not established). The hospital was not liable: no non-delegable duty and the doctor was an independent contractor under the consultancy agreement.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-517-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: NUUR IMAN RAHMATULLAH KHAN; First Defendant: AMPANG PUTERI HOSPITAL SDN BHD; Second Defendant: Dr Nurul Azwa bin Mohamad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 April 2023
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-517-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence Claim / Trial Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Claim against First Defendant dismissed; Claim against Second Defendant allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care (diagnosis and Treatment), Causation, Vicarious Liability, Non Delegable Duty, Damages, Medical Equipment/systems Liability
Source Language
Malay/English
Medical Negligence Tort Civil Procedure Health Care Law Informed Consent Standard of Care (diagnosis and Treatment) Causation Vicarious Liability +3 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUUR IMAN RAHMATULLAH KHAN

Plaintiff

AMPANG PUTERI HOSPITAL SDN BHD

First Defendant

Dr Nurul Azwa bin Mohamad

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence Claim / Trial Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PDCT was an acceptable treatment for the plaintiff's neck/back pain
  2. 2 Whether the treating doctor conducted adequate investigation prior to PDCT (need for repeat MRI)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was properly advised of material risks, benefits and complications (informed consent)

Ratio Decidendi

Court held PDCT was an acceptable treatment for the plaintiff's condition (deferential to medical opinion), but the second defendant failed to advise the plaintiff of material risks (inadequate informed consent). The bending of the needle was a known risk and abandoning the procedure was prudent; there was no evidence that the PDCT caused the C5/6 fusion (causation not established). The hospital was not liable: no non-delegable duty and the doctor was an independent contractor under the consultancy agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendant dismissed; Claim against Second Defendant allowed in part.

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s claim against First Defendant dismissed with costs of RM 30,000
  • Plaintiff’s claim against Second Defendant allowed for special damages of RM 21,955.60