A producer may be held liable for personal injury (or property damage) which are caused by defective products. Prior to 1999, product liability law in Malaysia was based on claims under the law of contract or law of negligence. Subsequently, the Consumer Protection Act 1999 was enacted to protect consumers from such defective or dangerous products (which are purchased for private and non-commercial purposes) which result in serious health risks or death. Unlike contractual liability, liability under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be limited or excluded by notice or contract.
The Tribunal for Consumer Claims Malaysia is established under the Consumer Protection Act to provide an alternative channel other than the civil courts for consumers to claim redress in respect of the purchase of goods or services supplied from the traders or service provider. We provide legal representation and advisory services with regards to the rights and remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Advising individuals on their rights and remedies who have suffered injuries as a result of a defective or dangerous product
- Advising individuals on the procedures to file a claim to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims Malaysia
- Advising companies on their rights and liabilities in situations where their product has caused injuries to consumers
Related Articles and Updates
Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. However, the Federal Court on 29/12/06 in its judgment in the case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor  1 MLJ 593 declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test is no longer applicable. The question of law which was posed for the determination of the Federal Court was whether the Bolam Test in the area of medical negligence should apply in relation to all aspects of medical negligence. The Federal Court answered the question in the negative.