Medical negligence is a growing concern in Malaysia, with healthcare failures arising during diagnosis, surgical procedures, medical advice, and follow-up care. These medical mishaps can result in serious, sometimes irreversible harm to patients, and when they do, the courts are often called upon to determine whether a breach of duty has occurred and the compensation to be awarded.
In this article, we explore the top five most common types of medical negligence, drawing from real-world Malaysian cases that have shaped the country’s medico-legal landscape. From missed diagnoses to surgical mishaps, each example illustrates how shortcomings in clinical judgment, whether during pre-operative assessment, intra-operative conduct, or post-treatment monitoring, can lead to life-altering consequences for patients.
1. Advice and Information
Clear, accurate advice and information are essential for patients to make informed decisions about their health. Healthcare providers have a duty to communicate openly, ensuring patients understand their diagnosis, treatment options, risks, and potential outcomes. Failures in communication, such as withholding critical information, providing misleading explanations, or using overly technical language, can leave patients unable to give informed consent.
Consent is not merely a formality but a legal and ethical cornerstone of medical practice. Consent failures occur when patients undergo procedures without fully understanding the risks or alternatives, or when their questions and concerns are dismissed. Communication breakdowns, including rushed consultations (evidence of poor documentation of discussions), can lead to misunderstandings that jeopardise patient safety and trust. Courts have increasingly recognised that consent and communication failures may amount to medical negligence when they result in harm to patients.
The following cases illustrate how the courts in Malaysia have addressed issues relating to advice and information in medical negligence claims:-
- In Dr Hari Krishnan & Anor v. Megat Noor Ishak bin Megat Ibrahim & Anor and Another Appeal [2018] 3 MLJ 281, the Federal Court found, amongst others, that the doctor had failed to inform the patient of material risks in the surgery proposed, a retinal detachment surgery to reattach the retina to the back eye and seal any breaks or holes. The Court also found that the doctor was negligent in failing to advise the patient of the necessity of the second surgery, to repair the retina in his right eye, which the doctor was convinced was folded or partially detached. The Court, in finding the doctor
negligent, awarded the patient damages in the sum of RM1,208,014. - In Jayshree L. C. Doshi (suing as the executor of the estate of Vinayak Pradhan) v Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors [2024] MLJU 2259, the deceased underwent a radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure performed by an interventional radiologist at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Putrajaya. Following the procedure, he experienced multiple complications and pain, necessitating additional medical treatments in Singapore. Tragically, he later passed away from the injuries he suffered. The court in awarding RM1,580,000 in damages and costs found, amongst others, that the radiologist who undertook the surgery had failed to advise the deceased patient regarding the RFA procedure, including its risks, benefits and consequences.
- In Norizan bt Abd Rahman v Dr Arthur Samuel [2013] 9 MLJ 385, the High Court found, amongst others, that the doctor had failed to advise the patient on the risk and complications of her uterus being perforated during the dilation and curettage process and the insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device (“IUCD”) in a single procedure. As a result, the Plaintiff was awarded damages in the sum of RM200,700.
2. Diagnostic / Medication Errors
Beyond communication and consent failures, another frequent basis for claims is errors in diagnosis and medication administration.
Accurate diagnosis and safe medication administration are fundamental to effective medical care. Diagnostic errors, such as misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, or failure to diagnose, can lead to inappropriate or missed treatment, worsening a patient’s condition. Similarly, medication errors, including prescribing the wrong drug or dosage, failing to account for allergies or interactions, and errors in administering medication, can cause serious harm. Both types of errors are common grounds for medical negligence claims, underscoring the need for rigorous standards in clinical decision-making and patient safety protocols.
The following cases illustrate how the courts in Malaysia have addressed diagnostic and/or medication errors in medical negligence claims:-
- In Gurmit Kaur a/p Jaswant Singh v Tung Shin Hospital & Anor [2012] 4 MLJ 260, the patient underwent surgery with the doctor to remove a fibroid, but unfortunately had her uterus removed instead. The court held that the doctor had, amongst others, misdiagnosed the patient as suffering from heavy and painful menstruation when she was not, and as a result, he performed an unnecessary hysterectomy. He had also failed to advise the patient on the type of surgery, risks and complications and the alternative treatment options available.
- In Thavani a/p Kaliaperummal (Mendakwa sebagai Ibu Sah dan Orang Tanggungan Sah bagi Komathi a/p Chellamuthu, (Si Mati)) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] MLJU 114, the patient passed away due to a misdiagnosed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after a motorcycle accident, which led to a fatal pulmonary embolism. Despite multiple visits, her condition was mistaken for a soft tissue injury, resulting in delayed and inadequate treatment. The court awarded the plaintiff in that case approximately RM700,896 in damages.
- In Daniel Lee Eng Wern v Aaron Lim Boon Keng [2025] MLJU 425, the patient presented with, among other things, complaints of back pain, but was diagnosed with a degenerative disc condition with mild prolapse without a proper clinical assessment. Despite repeated complaints of persistent pain, no imaging studies were ordered. This omission resulted in a failure to diagnose a large cell tumour located at the patient’s T10 thoracic vertebra. The court found the defendant liable and awarded damages.
3. Delays
Timely medical intervention can mean the difference between recovery and serious, sometimes permanent, harm. Unfortunately, delays in diagnosing a condition, initiating treatment, or transferring a patient for specialised care are among the most common forms of medical negligence.
These delays may result from administrative inefficiencies, miscommunication between healthcare professionals, or a failure to recognise the urgency of a patient’s symptoms. In many cases, patients deteriorate while waiting for tests, referrals, or even basic monitoring, often with preventable consequences. The courts in Malaysia have increasingly recognised that unjustified delays in treatment, particularly in emergency or time-sensitive situations, can amount to a breach of the duty of care.
A critical example of delays with devastating consequences occurs during childbirth. When there is a delay in delivering a baby, whether due to failure to promptly perform a cesarean section or inadequate monitoring of fetal distress, oxygen supply to the baby’s brain can be compromised, leading to hypoxic brain injury. Such injuries can cause lifelong disabilities, including cerebral palsy and other forms of permanent brain damage. Timely recognition and intervention in these situations are crucial to prevent avoidable harm to newborns and their families.
The following cases illustrate how the courts have addressed issues relating to delays in treatment in medical negligence claims:-
- In Zuasnita Binti Baharudin and Anor v The Government of Malaysia & Ors (Civil Suit No. AA-21NCVC-15-05/2021), the Government admitted negligence in the treatment and management of the deceased, an 11-month-old child, who had presented with clear signs of respiratory distress. It was found that the hospital not only failed to initiate timely treatment but also delayed transferring the child to another healthcare facility where specialist care was available. As a result of these delays, the child endured more than a month of complications before ultimately succumbing to septic shock. In awarding RM822,180 in total damages, the court found that the sum of RM500,000 in aggravated damages was justified in light of the exceptional neglect, prolonged inaction, and the failure to provide adequate medical care, factors which caused extended suffering to the child and profound emotional trauma to the parents.
- In Thaqif Asyraf bin Khairol Nizam v The Government of Malaysia & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 2261, there was a delay in inducing labour when the mother was presented with high-risk conditions, misinterpretation of fetal distress by nurses, and a subsequent 48-minute delay in delivery after an emergency was identified. The court held that the delay in providing timely care directly caused the infant patient’s permanent injuries. The Court of Appeal increased the High Court’s damages award to RM9.45 million, recognising the severity of the injuries and the lifelong impact on the infant patient. This remains the highest sum ever awarded in a medical negligence claim in Malaysia to date.
- In Siow Ching Yee v Columbia Asia Sdn Bhd [2024] 3 MLJ 66, the patient experienced severe post-operative bleeding following, amongst others, a tonsillectomy. The anaesthetist proceeded to induce general anaesthesia without securing the airway first. Due to the ongoing bleeding and vomiting, the initial attempt at intubation failed. Eventually, after approximately 25 minutes, the anaesthetist successfully intubated the patient. However, during this period, the patient was not breathing adequately, leading to hypoxic brain damage. The court held that the anaesthetist was negligent in her clinical decision-making, particularly regarding the delay in intubation and the method of airway management.
4. Intra-Operative Negligence
Surgical procedures carry inherent risks, but patients are entitled to expect that their operation will be performed with a reasonable standard of care and skill. Intra-operative negligence refers to errors that occur during surgery itself, ranging from accidental damage to surrounding organs, nerves, or vessels to the retention of surgical instruments or sponges.
One of the most common examples is an iatrogenic perforation, where an internal structure such as the bowel, bladder, or uterus is unintentionally punctured during surgery. These injuries can result in severe complications, including infection, peritonitis, organ failure, and the need for multiple corrective procedures.
In gynaecological practice, such perforations are often reported during fibroid removal procedures, particularly hysteroscopic or laparoscopic myomectomy, where the uterine wall may be inadvertently breached. In more severe cases, adjacent organs, such as the bladder or bowel, may also be injured. Iatrogenic bowel perforations are especially dangerous, as they may go unnoticed during surgery and lead to post-operative sepsis, delayed diagnosis, and even death if not promptly managed. While not every surgical complication constitutes negligence, the courts will examine whether the injury was avoidable and whether the surgical team acted with the appropriate caution and expertise.
The following cases illustrate how the courts have addressed issues relating to intra-operative issues in medical negligence claims:-
- In Norfazlin Zamani v The Government of Malaysia & Ors [2022] MLJU 3696, the doctor had acted negligently in causing the patient to suffer bladder lacerations during an emergency C-section, which resulted in the patient undergoing multiple revisional surgeries in the span of 3 days. The Government admitted that the doctor was negligent in treating the patient, and the court later awarded approximately RM687,390 in damages.
- In Sheela Christina Nair v. Regency Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] MLJU 1899, the defendant doctor admitted liability for negligence arising from a laparotomy during which the plaintiff’s small intestine was perforated. This error resulted in severe post-operative complications, ultimately requiring the plaintiff to depend on colostomy bags. The court awarded, among other sums, RM240,000 in damages for physical and emotional distress, as well as for the loss of amenities of life following the negligently performed surgery.
- In Nurul Iman binti Abu Mansor v Gleneagles Hospital Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 9 MLJ 22, the patient underwent carpal tunnel release surgery and subsequently lost sensation in three fingers of her right hand. During the subsequent surgery at another healthcare facility, it was discovered that approximately five centimetres of her median nerve had been negligently resected during the earlier surgeries. The High Court held that the doctor was negligent and awarded approximately RM1.1 million in damages.
5. Post-Operative Negligence
The period following surgery is critical for a patient’s recovery, requiring careful monitoring and prompt management of any complications. Post-operative negligence occurs when healthcare providers fail to provide appropriate care during this vulnerable phase, leading to preventable harm.
This can include inadequate wound care, failure to detect infections, improper pain management, or neglect of signs of serious complications such as blood clots or internal bleeding. Such lapses can prolong recovery, cause significant pain, or even result in life-threatening conditions, making post-operative vigilance essential to patient safety.
The following cases illustrate how the courts have addressed issues relating to post-operative issues in medical negligence claims:-
- In Dayalan a/l Sathiamutty v Gleneagles Hospital (Kuala Lumpur) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2023] MLJU 2192, the court allowed the patient’s claim that the doctor failed to provide adequate post-surgical care and advice, particularly considering the patient’s diabetic condition which affected the healing of his wounds following the surgery to repair the injury to his left Achilles heel. As a result, the court awarded damages totalling RM122,866.
- In Jayshree L. C. Doshi (suing as the executor of the estate of Vinayak Pradhan) v Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors [2024] MLJU 2259, the court held that the doctor was also negligent in the post-operative care of the patient, specifically in failing to ensure that the radiologist and hospital staff appropriately managed the third-degree burns sustained during the radiofrequency ablation procedure. The court also found fault in the undue delay in referring the patient to a burn specialist for timely treatment.
Conclusion
Medical negligence can leave lasting physical, emotional, and financial scars on patients and their families. From delayed diagnoses to surgical errors and failures in communication or consent, recognising the most common forms of negligence is the first step toward protecting your rights.
These five categories of medical negligence claims are not exhaustive. Medical negligence can arise in various forms, such as equipment malfunctions during surgery, failure to maintain or properly sterilise medical instruments, the use of expired or defective medical supplies, mismanagement of medical records, or poor hygiene and infection control in hospital wards. In some cases, systemic failures – such as understaffing, inadequate training, or a lack of proper supervision – can also lead to serious lapses in patient care.
If you suspect that you or a loved one has been affected by substandard medical care, it is essential to consult a qualified legal professional without delay. Our experienced medical negligence lawyers can clearly explain your legal options, help you gather expert medical opinions, and guide you through the process of seeking justice.
By Jeremy Balang and Tharani Kunasekaran
Note: This article does not constitute legal advice to any specific case. The facts and circumstances of each and every case will differ and therefore will require specific legal advice. Feel free to contact us for complimentary legal consultation.
