Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Personal Injury Claim - Coggle Diagram

- - - - (1) Bills
        
        Section 28(1)(a) of CLA 1956 :star:
        
        Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v Soo Cheng Lin [2018] 1 MLJ 685 entitled full amount of medical expenses from the def was not diminished by the fact that part of the expenses was covered by insurance.
        
        Khairul Sham Bin Ahmad & Anor v Yesudass a/l Michaelsamy [2005] 2 MLJ 679 ACE General Insurance Bhd had covered a medical bill amounting to RM 40k. Thus, the court determined not entitled - not suffer any financial expenses as a result of medical bill - following the fundamental principle of compensatory damages, which is to assist the aggrieved party in recovering from their losses, the plaintiff should not be compensated by the defendant for the expenses that he did not incur.
      - (2) Government/Private Hospital
        
        Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] 2 MLJ 465 claimants have the liberty to select the hospital that most effectively meets their needs, irrespective of whether it is a public or private hospital. BUT GENERAL RULE :!: is that patients who receive medical care at a public hospital are entitled to receive a complete reimbursement.
        
        :!:IF patient opts for private healthcare, they must justify that they acted reasonably and that the related expenditures were acceptable like in FC's decision in Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1 - BOP lies on the plaintiff to support claim with concrete evidence.
        
        Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] 2 MLJ 465 also established a set of standards for determining the compensation for medical expenses accrued at private hospitals. The plaintiff who receives treatment at a private hospital is required to substantiate the necessity for such treatment by satisfying one of three conditions: :!!:(a) the treatment was not accessible at a government hospital due to insufficient equipment, qualified medical professionals, or other legitimate reasons; (b) the treatment was not available within a reasonable timeframe at a government hospital, considering its urgency; or (c) the treatment provided at the government hospital was severely deficient.
        
        Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (a child suing through his father and next friend, Zuliskandar Md Pechor) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2018] MLJU 2185 child who suffered irreversible brain damage due to negligent treatment at a public hospital. - It was contended that public hospitals lacked resources to meet his specific care and rehabilitation needs, leading to delays and inadequate treatment. Despite the plaintiff's parents seeking private medical care due to these limitations and their work commitments, :!!: the courts held that the full reimbursement for private hospital expenses was not justified, given the availability of treatment and expertise for cerebral palsy patients in government hospitals.
        
        (3) traditional treatments
        
        Nurul Husna Muhammad Hafiz & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2014] MLJU 1922 the court allowed a claim of RM5,340 for 89 months of traditional massage therapy, supported by expert testimony from Associate Professor Dr. Lydia (PW3), who highlighted the benefits of complementary and alternative medical therapy for persons with cerebral palsy. The court rejected the defendants' call for a 1/3 deduction, as no sufficient reason was provided for such a reduction.
        
        Fazli bin Suboh & Ors v Dr Fatimah bt Ahmad Fauzi & Ors [2020] MLJU 2652, the court awarded RM3,960 for 66 months of traditional massages, deeming the expense reasonable due to the documented improvement in the patient’s condition.
        
        Empading ak Garai & Anor v Tambi ak Jerah [2023] MLJU 692, the court acknowledged the prevalent use of traditional treatments in Sarawak, especially for injuries not treated surgically, recognizing traditional massage as an integral part of the physiotherapy process endorsed by medical experts. The court emphasized that these treatments are not one-off payments but recurrent expenses necessary for ongoing relief and recovery.
      - (4) Travelling expenses
        
        Lim Kiat Boon & Ors v Lim Seu Kong & Ors (1980) 2 MLJ 39, the court awarded the transport expenses for his wife and children to visit him at the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur for 324 trips @ $1.50 per trip by taxi.
        
        In Soo Wai Seng v Tan Kim Lock [1986], the court showed the assessment of damages had he fulfilled the requirement to claim for damages. For expenses incurred by the plaintiff's father to visit the plaintiff 3 times per week during the time the plaintiff was in the hospital for 50 days at $1/- bus fare per trip – 21 trips × $1/- – $21.00.
        
        Nurul Husna Muhammad Hafiz & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2014] MLJU 1922, the court addressed the travel expenses incurred by Nurul Husna's parents for her treatment and care. Her parents travelled extensively to hospitals, therapy centres, and other places to get necessary items and services. They documented these expenses, estimating RM500 per month, totalling RM44,500 over 89 months. The defendants argued for a 1/3 deduction, claiming not all expenses were solely for Nurul Husna. However, the court found the expenses were for her benefit and allowed the full claim of RM44,500.