Court dismisses RM3mil suit over UUM student’s death

 Alor Setar High Court judge says S Vinosiny’s father had failed to prove that she died due to an electric shock.

S Vinosiny was found dead in a hostel at Universiti Utara Malaysia in Sintok, Kedah, in May 2022. (File pic)

PETALING JAYA:

 The Alor Setar High Court has dismissed a RM3 million suit filed by a man following the death of his daughter in a Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) hostel due to an alleged electric shock in 2022.

Judge Mohammad Johan Lee dismissed the suit with RM5,000 in costs after finding that R Sivakumar had failed to prove his case against UUM, Kosmo reported.

In his judgment, Johan said the plaintiff failed to prove that S Vinosiny, 21, died due to an electric shock.

“The plaintiff relied heavily on the post-mortem report prepared by SP1 (medical officer), who concluded that the cause of death was due to an electric shock based on findings and injuries to the deceased’s ankle,” he was quoted as saying.

“However, during cross-examination, SP1’s findings were found to have fundamental weaknesses when he admitted that he had formed an initial opinion of a possible electric shock before visiting the scene or completing investigations.”

He added that SP1 also admitted to not conducting important forensic tests such as metallisation testing, and not having expertise in the field of electricity.

The judge added that Vinosiny was also found to have myocardial fibrosis, a condition that increases the risk of arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), which can be fatal.

He said the court also found that the post-mortem report could not be relied upon as strong evidence because SP1 was not a consultant forensic pathologist and had handled fewer than five electric shock cases throughout his career.

SP1 had acknowledged that the conclusion of an electric shock was based on the possibility that the deceased’s ankle had come into contact with a metal bar under a table.

He said SP1 clearly admitted there was no connection to an electric shock from a wall lamp as alleged in the plaintiff’s case, and that the metal bar was merely a conductor and could not itself be a source of electricity.

“As SP1 failed to identify the source of the electrical leakage, his conclusion remains a mere assumption.

“Furthermore, the defendant presented convincing independent evidence from the Energy Commission, which conducted a comprehensive test on June 1, 2022, and concluded that there was no electrical leakage and that safety devices were functioning properly,” he said, according to the daily.

Sivakumar was represented by lawyers M Manoharan and M Hariharan, while UUM was represented by lawyers P Barvina and Y Sathisharajah.

Manoharan said they would file an appeal against the decision tomorrow.

In 2023, Sivakumar received a letter from the Alor Setar sessions court stating that Vinosiny died as a result of “an accident caused by electrocution”, adding that this conclusion was made after the case was referred to the coroner’s court.

Sivakumar sued the university for negligence, alleging that the university had breached its duty of care to Vinosiny by failing to ensure she was safe from electrocution. - FMT