Hospital executive awarded RM254,000 for botched eye surgery

 The Kuala Terengganu High Court also orders ophthalmologist and private medical clinic to pay the plaintiff RM35,000 in costs.

Judicial commissioner Yusrin Faidz Yusoff said aggravated damages were awarded in view of the defendants’ failure to inform the plaintiff of the severity of her injury. (Reuters pic)

PETALING JAYA:

 A 50-year-old woman was awarded close to RM254,000 in damages in a medical negligence suit against a doctor and a private medical clinic following a surgical procedure that left her with permanent macular damage and partial vision loss in the right eye.

Judicial commissioner Yusrin Faidz Yusoff delivered the ruling online today from the Kuala Terengganu High Court, solely on the assessment of damages.

The defendants had admitted liability on the first day of trial, with witnesses testifying only on the quantum of damages.

Yusrin awarded Mazidah Mohamad RM150,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities; RM75,000 in aggravated damages; RM15,000 for mental distress and future treatment; RM10,000 for loss of earning capacity; and RM3,587 as special damages.

The judge also ordered the defendants to pay 5% interest on the damages awarded from the date of filing until the settlement of the full judgment sum.

Additionally, the defendants were ordered to pay RM35,000 in costs to the plaintiff, a procurement executive at a private hospital in Kuala Terengganu.

Yusrin noted that liability was not admitted at the earliest opportune time but only when the trial started.

He said the aggravated damages were awarded in view of the defendants’ failure to inform the plaintiff of the severity of her injury.

Facts of the case revealed that on June 22, 2021, the second defendant, a consultant ophthalmologist, performed a surgery to remove a cyst on the plaintiff’s right eye at a specialist clinic, owned by the first defendant.

During the procedure, a steroid injection perforated the eye, causing permanent and irreversible damage to the plaintiff’s macula – a critical area at the centre of the retina responsible for sharp, detailed central vision.

Despite the severity of the injury, the court noted that the specialist failed to inform the plaintiff of the perforation as soon as possible, did not irrigate her eye at the earliest opportunity and provided no referral for emergency corrective care.

Lawyers Harish Nair and Maxine Lim appeared for the plaintiff while Sathisharajah Yuvarajah acted for the defendants. - FMT