Siti Arbaiyah Binti Umar 1. ) UKM Kesihatan Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Ahmad Zailani Hatta bin Mohd Dali

Siti Arbaiyah Binti Umar 1. ) UKM Kesihatan Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Ahmad Zailani Hatta bin Mohd Dali

The court found the Second Defendant discharged the duty to advise because the Plaintiff was informed of material risks and the posterior option by consultant Dr. Ismail and consented; the treatment (anterior approach) and intraoperative decision to abandon excision were within accepted medical practice as supported by expert evidence; causation between the Second Defendant's conduct and the Plaintiff's ongoing pain was not established. Therefore the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-489-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Siti Arbaiyah Binti Umar; First Defendant: UKM Kesihatan Sdn. Bhd.; Second Defendant: Dr. Ahmad Zailani Hatta bin Mohd Dali
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 April 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-489-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / Civil Tort / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the Second Defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Duty to Advise of Material Risks, Standard of Care (bolam/bolitho), Causation, Surgical Approach Selection, Referral to Specialist
Source Language
Malay/English
Medical Negligence Tort Civil Procedure Informed Consent Duty to Advise of Material Risks Standard of Care (bolam/bolitho) Causation Surgical Approach Selection +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siti Arbaiyah Binti Umar

Plaintiff

UKM Kesihatan Sdn. Bhd.

First Defendant

Dr. Ahmad Zailani Hatta bin Mohd Dali

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence / Civil Tort / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant breached duty to advise of material risks and alternatives (posterior approach)
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant breached duty of care in diagnosis and treatment (choice and conduct of anterior approach)
  3. 3 Whether there is causation between the alleged breach and Plaintiff's ongoing pain and loss of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Second Defendant discharged the duty to advise because the Plaintiff was informed of material risks and the posterior option by consultant Dr. Ismail and consented; the treatment (anterior approach) and intraoperative decision to abandon excision were within accepted medical practice as supported by expert evidence; causation between the Second Defendant's conduct and the Plaintiff's ongoing pain was not established. Therefore the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the Second Defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim against the Second Defendant is dismissed in its entirety
  • Costs awarded to the Second Defendant in the sum of RM38,000 payable by the Plaintiff