Chris & Partners Advocates & Solicitors

Medical Negligence

Medical Negligence

In Malaysia, medical negligence cases require expert legal guidance. Our firm specializes in representing clients who have suffered due to medical errors or healthcare malpractice. We understand the complexities of Malaysian medical law and provide compassionate, effective advocacy to ensure your rights are upheld.

Are you looking for the best Medical lawyer ?

Have you or a loved one been harmed due to possible medical negligence by hospitals or clinics in Malaysia? Our lawyers have extensive experience representing victims of preventable medical mistakes, from hospital errors to specialist malpractice, when sudden, life-changing events occur.

Why Choose Us As Your Medical Lawyer?

Are you these medical negligence issues?

01.

Misdiagnosing or not diagnosing serious conditions like cancer, heart disease, or infections.

02.

Surgical mistakes, such as damaging organs, leaving objects inside the body, or causing infections.

03.

Medication errors, like giving the wrong drug or dosage, leading to complications.

04.

Failing to properly monitor patients or respond to test results.

05.

Childbirth mistakes that harm the baby, such as lack of oxygen or causing cerebral palsy.

06.

Delayed treatment that allows treatable conditions to get worse.

FAQs

1. What counts as “medical negligence” in Malaysian law?

It is a tort requiring proof of duty of care, breach, causation and damage, the test having been firmly endorsed by the Federal Court in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun [2007] and consistently followed ever since.

Malaysia applies the modified Bolam-Bolitho approach: expert opinion must not only represent accepted practice (Bolam) but must also withstand logical analysis (Bolitho).

Yes. In Siow Ching Yee v Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd (Federal Court, 23 Feb 2024) the court awarded RM2.1 million and insisted that professional custom is no shield if the practice itself is illogical.

No. Siow Ching Yee recognised a hospital’s non-delegable duty of care to in-patients, meaning the institution is jointly liable with the negligent doctor.

Courts measure disclosure against both the Medical Council’s 2019 Good Medical Practice guidelines and the Bolam-Bolitho yardstick, requiring practitioners to disclose any material risk a reasonable patient would want to know.

Under the case law of Gurmit Kaur, it could be deemed as an admission of liability if the doctor apologised.

An action must be filed within six years of the negligent act (Limitation Act 1953, s 6). For the government facilities, the action must be filed within 3 years (PAPA 1948, s2).

Courts may apply an equitable “date-of-knowledge” rule where the injury was not reasonably discoverable earlier, allowing the claim even after six years. However, it is not advisable to do it in practice.

Yes. High Court Practice Direction 1/2024 obliges parties to identify and exchange expert reports at case-management; late reports can be excluded.

A Bar Council–MOH working group has drafted a voluntary Medical Mediation Scheme (pilot launch expected 2025) to shorten litigation timelines.

Recent judgments (including the RM 2.1 million Siow award) confirm a willingness to recognise lifelong care costs.

They apply the multiplier-multiplicand method with a 2 % real-discount rate, following Tun Pakir (CA 2023).

Yes where the conduct shows conscious or reckless disregard for patient safety, but awards remain exceptional.

Yes. Deduction of 10-25 % is common where, for example, the patient ignored post-operative instructions.

Still unsettled: the High Court rejected it in Baharuddin v UM Specialist Centre [2022]; the Court of Appeal’s decision is pending.

Internal SOPs are persuasive evidence of breach because they show the standard the institution itself considered safe.

Sections 90A-90B Evidence Act allow computerised records to be proved by a certificate that identifies the device and its hash value.

Valid consent, therapeutic privilege, proof of accepted competent practice and the possibility that an intervening act, not the doctor’s breach, caused the damage.

No, but it is highly persuasive when the same facts come before the civil court.

Yes under Order 40A Rules of Court, though the judge may require security for their costs.

If the claimant wins, reasonable expert fees are normally recoverable as disbursements.

The MOH’s 2024 concept paper proposes a Cerebral Palsy fund; legislation is awaited.

They must show on the balance of probabilities that the negligent act materially contributed to the injury.

Yes under Order 15 rule 12, but medical-negligence class actions remain rare in practice.

Courts are likely to treat AI output as an adjunct: responsibility stays with the clinician who relied on it.

Private Healthcare Facilities Regulations 1996 reg 91 sets a minimum of seven years; loss of notes may trigger an adverse inference.

The proposed mediation scheme will allow privileged, without-prejudice meetings to explore early settlement.

Yes. PD 1/2024 expressly empowers judges to direct experts to confer and produce a joint statement narrowing the issues.

Yes—if evidence shows the claimant will actually bear the tax on future services.

If the plaintiff betters an Order 22B formal offer, the court can award indemnity costs from the offer date onward.

Scroll to Top