一览式案件

• 案件名称： Zulhasnimar bt Hasan Basri & Anor v Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors
• 引用 [2017] 5 MLJ 438
• 法院 马来西亚联邦法院
• 年份： 2017
• 执业领域： 医疗过失

背景和事实

The plaintiff suffered serious injury during obstetric care provided by the defendants. The case turned on the standard of care expected of obstetricians in managing the delivery, and on whether the defendants had breached that standard.

After Foo Fio Na [2007] 1 MLJ 593, there was uncertainty in the lower courts about whether the patient-centric Whitaker test extended beyond risk disclosure to diagnosis and treatment, or whether Bolam-Bolitho still applied in those domains.

本案的争议焦点

The Federal Court was asked to clarify the boundary between Foo Fio Na (risk disclosure, Whitaker) and Bolam-Bolitho (diagnosis and treatment), and to articulate the modern Malaysian test for breach of duty in medical negligence.

持守与推理

The Federal Court reaffirmed that for diagnosis and treatment, the 波拉姆 test as modified by 博利托 remains the law. A doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion — provided that opinion withstands logical analysis.

The patient-centric Whitaker test from Foo Fio Na is confined to the duty to inform and disclose risks. The two tests apply to different domains and are not in conflict.

为什么这个案子在2026年仍然重要

The decision gave Malaysian doctors and litigators a clear, dual framework:

• Diagnosis & treatment → Bolam-Bolitho. Expert peer evidence is required, but the supporting opinion must withstand logical analysis.
• Disclosure of risks → Whitaker (per Foo Fio Na). What matters is what a reasonable patient would want to know.

For litigators, Zulhasnimar ended an era of confusion and clarified the framework now applied in every Malaysian med-neg trial.

常见问题解答

Does Zulhasnimar make Malaysian medical negligence harder or easier to prove?

It clarifies — neither harder nor easier. For risk disclosure (Foo Fio Na/Whitaker) the patient sets the standard, which favours claimants. For diagnosis and treatment (Bolam-Bolitho), peer evidence still drives the analysis but courts will reject opinions that lack logical basis.

What is the practical effect for hospitals in 2026?

Hospitals must continue to maintain robust clinical guidelines (for the Bolam-Bolitho standard) and clear consent practices (for the Foo Fio Na standard). Failure on either limb supports a negligence finding.

Is expert evidence still essential?

Yes. For diagnosis and treatment the case still depends on peer expert opinion. The difference post-Bolitho/Zulhasnimar is that the court is not bound to accept any peer opinion that lacks a logical basis.

免费30分钟咨询

如果您有可以根据本案原则解决的事务，我们提供免费的30分钟初步咨询。.

WhatsApp +60 17-702 2800 电话 +60 18-662 8866 · 预约免费咨询