Muhd Yusof V Ahmad Wahab
Muhd Yusof V Ahmad Wahab
BETWEEN
AND
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. Elmizan bin Mohd Yusoff (“the deceased”) died on 12 April 2007, at the age of
30 after spending 21 days in Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd (“the
care and management of the first defendant, Dr Abdul Wahab Sufarian (“Dr
diagnosed and treated for dengue but the diagnosis was later revised to
1
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
dengue haemorrhagic fever. His parents, the first and second plaintiffs, allege
that the death of their son was caused by the negligence of Dr Abdul Wahab
2. They have brought this against Dr Abdul Wahab and the second defendant
for breach of duty and breach of contract in the diagnosis and the treatment
afforded to their son whilst in their care. They also claim that the second
3. The basis of the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is set out in paragraphs
adm inis ter ing the tr eatm ent f or the de c eas ed that a f te r 21
2007; and
2
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
defendants.”
Narrative
4. The deceased arrived at the Accident & Emergency Department of the second
headache and generalized body ache, nausea and vomiting. He was then
admitted into the second defendant’s hospital under the care and management
5. Dr Abdul Wahab was the physician primarily responsible for the care,
management and treatment of the deceased until his demise on 12 April 2007.
Upon his admission, the doctor performed a clinical examination and ordered,
among others, a liver function test and blood tests. He found no plasma
diagnosis of dengue fever and treated him for that. He further ordered a dengue
6. The serology test for dengue was negative. The tests were repeated for the
next 3 days but continued to show negative for dengue fever. The deceased’s
condition did not improve and on 25 March 2007, he became breathless and
started to gasp for air. Whereupon, chest X-rays were done and the report
showed that the deceased had a “bilateral patchy shadowing” in his lungs. At
3
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
this point, Dr Abdul Wahab suspected that the deceased may have had
He then prescribed intravenous antibiotic and intensive care and ventilation and
transferred the deceased to the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”). Later, he revised
the Hospital, to help him co-manage the deceased. In the meantime, the
medical condition of the deceased remained critical and did not show any
signs of improvement.
assistance to determine the virus that was causing the deceased’s illness. In
aspirate samples collected from the deceased’s throat for analysis. On 9 April
General Hospital.
4
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
9. All serology tests continued to show that the deceased was not dengue
the ICU.
10. The cause of death was certified as ‘Severe Thrombocytopenia with Pulmonary
11. A medical report issued by Dr Abdul Wahab, subsequent to the death of the
deceased, confirmed that all tests in respect of the said deceased, had
Dengue/DHL
12. Before I deal with the issues in this case, it will be useful to state a few well
Aedes mosquito infected with a dengue virus. The mosquito becomes infected
when it bites a person with dengue virus in his blood. Dengue hemorrhagic
fever is a more severe form of the viral illness with a high mortality rate.
Doctors can diagnose dengue infection with a serology test to check for the
infection.
5
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
Issues
13. In dealing with the liability of Dr Abdul Wahab and the second defendant, there
dengue/DHL?
Negligence
there can be no liability in the absence of proof of fault. For the plaintiffs to
succeed in their claim. They have to prove (1) the defendants owed a duty
of care to the deceased; (2) the defendants were in breach of that duty; and(3)
Witnesses
15. The father and mother of the deceased were the only two witnesses who gave
evidence in support of the plaintiffs case. On the other hand, Dr Abdul Wahab
6
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
testified on his behalf and called Dr Tan Lian Huat, a specialist in Internal
Testimony of plaintiffs
16. According to the plaintiffs, the deceased was a fit young man prior to his death.
They were at all material times advised by Dr Abdul Wahab and led to believe
that their son was suffering from dengue/DHL. However, when their son was
informed them that Dr Abdul Wahab had sought her assistance to identify the
virus that was causing their son’s illness. She went on to tell them that she had
advised Dr Abdul Wahab that his diagnosis and treatment of the deceased for
17. The plaintiffs also testified that on another occasion, a different doctor, one Dr
Puru, had approached them and alerted them that their son was not suffering
to them that the respiratory problems of the deceased was because of SARS.
The plaintiffs said that on both occasions when they were advised that the
diagnosis and treatment was erroneous, Dr Abdul Wahab was not present.
18. It was in evidence, as earlier noted, no post mortem was conducted as the
first plaintiff had signed a refusal to consent to post mortem form. According
to the first plaintiff, he did not know that the form he had signed was a refusal
7
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
form because the contents of the form were in English and not explained to
him. Both of the plaintiffs maintained that they were not advised by Dr Abdul
Wahab nor the second defendant, that a post mortem was essential to
19. In his evidence, Dr Abdul Wahab maintained that his diagnosis of dengue and
DHL was correct based on his clinical examination and tests results. He
denied that he had adopted a tunnel vision and had focussed only on
dengue/DHL. He maintained that he had kept an open mind and, did consider
that the deceased’s illness could be due to some other virus instead of the
dengue virus, when the serology tests suggested it was not dengue. He
explained that he had ordered numerous other tests and investigations to rule
out other causes, inter alia like Hepatitis A IgM, HBsAg HCV Antibody and
blood cultures. All these tests were negative. He added that he had also
considered, inter-alia, pneumonia and influenza A virus but the results of all
20. According to the doctor, he changed his diagnosis of the deceased’s medical
condition from dengue fever to DHL as the latter had all the major clinical
was suffering from plasma leakage based on the ultrasound report of the
deceased’s abdomen which indicated a small right basal pleural effusion and,
8
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
the chest x-ray report dated 25 March 2007 which stated that the
21. According to Dr Abdul Wahab, when the condition of the deceased started to
sent a tracheal aspirate sample obtained from the deceased’s throat to the
IMR, to identify the virus but IMR was unable to detect the virus that had
22. Dr Abdul Wahab denied that Dr Puru and Dr Jeyamalar had informed him that
his diagnosis was wrong and that the deceased was suffering from pneumonia
or SARS.
23. He went on to explain that the reason he had repeated the serology tests until
the very end was because some patients would not react to the dengue tests
although infected with the dengue virus. He pointed out that the serology test
indication that the deceased did not have the dengue virus.
24. Under cross-examination, Dr Abdul Wahab was asked to explain why the
cause of death was not stated as dengue in the death certificate, if his
diagnosis was correct. His replied that he did not do so because all the
serology tests done on a daily basis did not show it was dengue, although the
9
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
further asked to explain why he had prescribed antibiotics for the deceased
since dengue is a viral infection. The doctor accepted antibiotics is not usually
prescribed for dengue, but had done so in this case because the deceased
25. Dr Abdul Wahab also denied that he had unreasonably clung to his diagnosis
of dengue/DHL although the chest X-rays and serology tests, should have
made him question if his diagnosis was correct. He maintained that dengue is
a clinical diagnosis and cannot be ruled out merely because laboratory results
Testimony of Dr Tan
26. Dr Tan Lian Huat testified that he has been involved in dengue study with the
said that he was very familiar with adults’ sides of dengue management and is
27. He opined that Dr Abdul Wahab’s diagnosis of dengue and DHF was not
explained that the fact that the serology tests were negative, did not indicate
10
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
28. Dr Tan explained that classical dengue becomes DHL when the patient
added that according to WHO Guidelines, the classical symptoms of DHF are
He said that the medical records and test reports demonstrated that the
deceased had all the symptoms of dengue and DHL and also a distended gall
29. The diagnosis of dengue, explained Dr Tan, has two components; clinical
diagnosis and laboratory diagnosis. He said that as there are patients who will
never seroconvert to the dengue diagnostic test, despite laboratory test results,
clinical diagnosis could not be ruled out. He was of the opinion that Dr Abdul
Wahab had carried out various and relevant tests when the latter noted that
the deceased’s clinical and laboratory parameters were not in keeping with
the typical dengue infection like breathlessness and the progression of the
disease.
30. On the chest X-rays, Dr Tan said that the interpretation of X-ray has to go
together with the clinical picture, clinical information, patients symptoms and
changes on the X-rays as he does not have the full history findings. Dr Tan
pointed out that portable chest X-rays were done by the defendants as
11
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
31. Dr Tan went on to explain that the samples sent to IMR did not indicate that
the deceased was suffering from influenza A. He explained that IMR would
A. He added that the Test report from IMR stated that common respiratory
32. Dr Tan further added that the medical records showed that the initial symptoms
of deceased did not include flu and sore throat, which are classical symptoms
are not used for treating dengue, unless there are complications. In a case of
pure virus infection, antibiotics do not help. He said that antibiotics when
prescribed for pure dengue infection is not detrimental to the patient’s health.
challenged. It was put to him that he was not an independent witness and his
34. He was asked to explain why both he and Dr Abdul Wahab have taken the
position that the cause of death was probably due to dengue/DHL despite
most crucial one because that provide a base for our further
12
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
plan and further decision. The investigational tool are just
additional tool that help to support our impression and our
clinical suspicion so all the test that we, that has been created
to help us to diagnose are helpful in somewhat in, in some
situation but not 100% time would be correct in that sense
because we do know very well following an infection not
everybody will seroconvert meaning not everybody would be
able to mount the antibody response for the test to be
detected.”
35. In further cross-examination, he was asked about a PCR test that was done
by Dr Abdul Wahab some two weeks after the deceased was diagnosed with
doing the test within the first week. In answer, he explained that it was true that
it is advisable to do the PCR test for genetically identifying dengue within the
first week, as the DNA of the dengue virus would not be detectable if the test
is delayed. But, clarified that this test was generally only available in
36. The second defendant’s witnesses testified that Dr Abdul Wahab was an
13
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
37. I shall deal with issues (i) and (ii) as stated in paragraph 13 together. The crux
of the plaintiffs’ case is that Dr Abdul Wahab’s diagnosis and treatment of their
diagnosis that it was dengue. His life could have been saved if the defendants
38. It is common ground that Dr Abdul Wahab owed the deceased a duty of care
in diagnosing and treating his illness as the attending doctor in charge of the
care and management of the deceased. At such, the next issue I need to
39. The parties were in disagreement as to the test that was applicable to
determine the liability of the defendants. The plaintiffs took the position that it
was the test laid down by the Federal Court in Foo Fio Na v. Dr Soo Fook
Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ, whilst the defendants maintained that it was the
Appeal in Gleneagles Hospital (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Chung Chu Yin [2013] 8
CLJ 449. The defendants argued that the Foo Fio Na did not apply to the
14
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
present case as the Federal Court had made it clear that the test is applicable
alleged to have failed in his duty to provide medical advice to a patient on the
40. In answer, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants submission was
Abdul Wahab was negligent in failing to advise the deceased and/or them, of
the possibility of there being causes other than dengue. And, therefore the
41. In view of the positions taken by the parties, it becomes necessary to examine
the amended statement of claim to ascertain what is the pleaded case of the
are correct in the submissions they make that the claim is premised on
misdiagnosis and treatment. This is further borne out by the list of agreed
15
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
defendant and/or the second defendant in breach of his duty
of care owed to the deceased; and
(c) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs are
entitled to the damages, interests and costs as pleaded in the
amended statement of claim.
(emphasis added)
42. As the complaints of the plaintiffs relate to the diagnosis and treatment of the
deceased, the test applicable is the Bolam test and not Foo Fio Na. In the
former case, McNair stated (at 121-122) :
16
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
43. In accordance with the Bolam test, for a plaintiff to succeed he must adduce
degree of skill and care. The medical practitioner can therefore be held liable if
diagnosis and treatment, the Court perforce has to rely on and evaluate expert
44. There is one other point that I need to address on the use of medical articles
the defendants. In the present case, the plaintiffs had relied on Wikipedia
negligence. The defendants objected stating that the contents of the articles
were unreliable and did not meet the criteria of a medical opinion by a
responsible body. The plaintiffs replied that these articles and reports in the
Wikipedia are the results of specialists giving their views and there was no
persons who wrote these articles in Wikipedia for reference are not
17
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
45. The law requires issues of fact to be decided on the evidence actually given
extracts taken from articles downloaded from the internet, no matter how
eminent its author may be, until and unless the maker is called to test the
cases, expert medical opinion will be relevant and useful where it is based
on the facts of the case which others have observed and to which they have
contention that the articles that they relied on can be admitted without
Burden of Proof
46. The plaintiffs accepted that the burden was on them to prove negligence and
not for the defendants to show that they were not negligent. But, it was argued
that there is no rule that in every case expert medical evidence must be called
failure to do so, it was argued, was not fatal, as the law permits a plaintiff to
breach of duty.
18
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
47. In the present case, it was argued that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on
the unreasonable position taken by the defendants in the defence that the
cause of death was dengue/DHL despite the fact that the results of the medical
tests negated it. In this regard, reliance was placed on the negative results of
the serology tests and the following passage in the Chest X-ray report dated 25
March 2007 which stated, “there is a patchy consolidation seen in the right and
left lung with air bronchogram seen and may be due to either pulmonary
suggested.” The X-ray report, it was argued, indicated that pneumonia was a
possible cause for the respiratory problems of the deceased but, there the
medical records and notes of the defendants did not show it was investigated.
48. The plaintiffs contended on the basis of the above evidence, the plaintiff had
raised a prima facie inference that the defendants were negligent and this
had shifted the evidential burden to the defendants to prove that their
diagnosis and treatment of the deceased for dengue was correct. It was
argued that the defendants have failed to rebut the evidential burden on
them by calling all the specialists who had helped to co-manage the
deceased. The glaring failure to call Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru, justified the
drawing of an adverse inference against the defendants under section 114 (g)
of the Evidence Act 1950, that if called, they would not have supported his
diagnosis of dengue/DHL.
19
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
49. The defendants disputed that a breach of duty can be proven without medical
support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the oft cited case of
defendants argued that they have discharged the evidential burden on them to
rebut the plaintiff’s case through the evidence of Dr Abdul Wahab and Dr Tan.
against them. It was argued that there was no obligation on them to call Dr
Jeyamalar and Dr Puru as the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove these
conversations in view of sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act. 1950.
50. I turn now to deal with the above arguments. It is true that the deceased died
whilst he was under the care and management of the defendants and whilst
The primary obligation still rests on the plaintiff to adduce evidence by calling
expert medical witnesses to establish in what way the diagnosis and treatment
51. The law however, does provides that in some circumstances where harm to
the patient does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, the maxim
res ipsa loqitar can be invoked by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of
20
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
negligence, eg, where a doctor who operates on the wrong eye, or leaves
In that case, a surgeon left a swab in the abdomen of his patient he had
operated on, and the patient died. Goddard L.J. said (at 50):
expect or desire.”
53. The plaintiffs in the instant case, did not rely on the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitar to establish their case, but took the position that at the close of the
plaintiffs case, there was sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie inference
21
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
(emphasis added)
54. The above passage was approved and adopted by the Court of Appeal in
Cheong Heng Loong Goldsmiths (KL) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Capital
Insurance Berhad & Anor Appeal [2004] 1 MLJ 353. Applying the test as set
out in Sarkar quoted above, the question is whether the 3 pieces of evidence
that the plaintiffs relied on were sufficient to justify a judgment in their favour if
there was no other evidence.
22
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
55. I start with the plaintiffs conversations with Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru.
According to the plaintiffs, the doctors had informed them that Dr Abdul
Wahab had sought their assistance to treat the deceased. The doctors had
observed that these conversations that the plaintiffs allude to in their evidence
their pleaded case. In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs denied that Dr
Abdul Wahab had consulted Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru and pleaded that
56. The plaintiffs proffered no explanation for their marked departure from their
pleaded case. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleaded case and
23
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
57. Further, neither Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru were called by the plaintiffs to
corroborate their evidence on this issue. It was their contention that they were
under no obligation to do so. The question as to who bears the burden of
proof of calling a particular witness to prove a fact, is afforded by the judgment
of the Court of Appeal in Juahir bin Sadikon v. Perbadanan Kemajuan
Ekonomi Negeri Johor [1996] 3 MLJ 627. In that case, the plaintiff claimed
that the defendant through one Tan Sri Dato' Haji Basir Basir had made an
offer to sell the land to him at the price of RM7,000-RM8,000. He applied for
,inter-alia, specific performance of the agreement. This was denied by the
defence. Tan Sri Basir was not called as a witness to prove that an offer was
made. In drawing an adverse inference against the plaintiff for not calling him
as a witness, Siti Norma Yaakub JCA said (at 635)
“He who alleges must prove such allegation and the onus is
on the appellant to do so. See s. 103 of the Act. Thus, it is
incumbent upon the appellant to produce Tan Sri Basir as his
witness to prove the allegation. The fact that the appellant was
unable to secure the attendance of Tan Sri Basir as a witness
does not shift the burden to the respondent to produce the
witness and testify as to what he had uttered, as firstly, the
respondent never raised such an allegation and, secondly, has
denied even making one. For this very reason, the adverse
inference under s. 114(g) of the Act relied upon by the
appellant cannot be accepted as establishing that if the witness
had been produced, his evidence would work against the
respondent. There is no obligation in law for the
respondent to produce the witness as that obligation rests
with the appellant, the party who alleges, and the fact that
the appellant was unable to do so is fatal to his
24
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
58. The passage quoted above illustrates that the obligation was on the plaintiffs to
call Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru as witnesses in support of their case. For the
plaintiffs claim that they had been informed by Dr Jeyamalar and Dr Puru that
59. All medical reports in the present case were put in part B of the documentary
evidence meaning that formal proof has been dispensed with, subject to
contents being proved by calling the maker or by other means. The plaintiffs
relied on the chest X-ray report dated 23 March 2007 which suggested the
deceased could have been suffering from pneumonia, as prima facie evidence
of negligence. It was said that the diagnosis of dengue was inconsistent with
the chest X-ray report, and it was for Dr Abdul Wahab to proffer an
explanation.
60. In response, the defendants contended that in view of the position taken by the
plaintiffs that they (the defendants) were not entitled to rely on the contents of
the documents in Part B without calling the specialists and the makers
concerned, the same rule applied to the plaintiffs as well. As the radiologist
who made the chest X-ray report was not called, the plaintiff was precluded
25
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
from relying on it. It was argued that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to blow
hot and cold by taking contrary positions. In the alternative, the defendants
argued that if the contents of the report are admitted as evidence, it was
imperative to read the said report carefully. It was pointed out that the report
did not state the patchy consolidation in the lungs could only be due to
to allow the plaintiffs to blow hot and cold. If the plaintiffs take the position that
the truth of the contents of documents in Part B must be proven by calling the
makers, this would mean that they are precluded from relying on the X-ray
that the plaintiffs are precluded from relying on the X-ray report, there is nothing
the defendants. The X-ray report was not evidence which demonstrated in any
way that the diagnosis of dengue was wrong. In the result, this evidence
does not assist the plaintiff in proving that the diagnosis was wrong.
Serology tests
62. The serology tests were the most crucial piece of evidence that the
plaintiffs relied on to show that the dengue diagnosis and treatment was
erroneous. But, the note at the bottom of the serology test reports made it
abundantly clear that a negative result did not exclude dengue. Thus, a
26
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
person could be infected with the dengue virus and the serology test would not
reveal this fact. In the light of note on the serology reports, the serology results
was not evidence that justified an inference that the defendants were
negligent.
63. For the reasons given, I am unable to agree with the plaintiffs that at the
close of the plaintiffs case, thus established sufficient facts which gave rise to an
inference that the dengue diagnosis and treatment was wrong. It is not
permissible or possible for the court to reach its own view, in the absence of
expert medical witnesses called by the plaintiffs, that the first defendant’s
diagnosis was wrong and that no reasonably skilled doctor would have come to
the same conclusion based on the results of the medical tests conducted. In
the absence of any prima facie evidence to show that the diagnosis and
treatment of the deceased for dengue was wrong, the plaintiff’s claim must fail.
64. Section 102 of the Evidence Act provides that burden of proof in a suit or
proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given
all were given on either side, and accordingly the plaintiff must
turn round and say that the defendant has not established his.
my case or not. You have not proved yours" (see the judgment
27
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
plaintiffs has failed to establish a prima facie case, I am satisfied that the
evidence adduced by the defendants was sufficient to rebut the plaintiffs case
that the dengue diagnosis was erroneous. Dr Tan expressed the view that the
defendants had done all that was necessary to identify the virus that had
infected the deceased. I reject the scathing criticisms made by the plaintiffs of
Tan’s was a partial and an unreliable witness. All that the court is required
views satisfy the threshold test of logic ie, were his views capable of
his evidence that in dengue/DHF cases, dengue laboratory tests are not
66. I also accept his evidence that the complaints of inaction and delay made by
but ruled out. The deceased was referred to other specialists when it became
28
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
67. I accept Dr Tan’s opinion that the diagnosis of Dr Abdul Wahab that the
probable cause of death of the deceased was due to dengue/ DHF was not
erroneous and is supported by the results of the medical tests results and the
faulted for failing to identify the specific illness or deceased from which the
patient is suffering. The fact that his diagnosis and treatment failed to produce
68. I therefore find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish to discharge the legal
misdiagnosing their son’s illness and failing to investigate whether his illness
of the deceased.
Second issue: Whether the death of the deceased was caused by the
69. It is common ground that the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish that the
death of the deceased. See decision of Court of Appeal in Dr Gun Suk Chyn
& 2 Ors v. Kartar Kaur a/l Jageer Singh [2014] 1 AMR 200. The plaintiffs
adduced no evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was due to
29
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
dengue.
70. In the present case no post mortem examination was done on the deceased.
There is evidence that the first plaintiff had signed a form refusing to give
mortem had been done, it would have indicated the infection that caused the
death of the deceased. I do not accept the evidence of the first plaintiff that he
did not know that the document that he had signed was a refusal form. I am
satisfied that he knew the nature of the document on which he had affixed
his signature. The first plaintiff is a retired policeman and it is improbable that
he would not have known the nature of the document that he had signed.
Having declined to give his consent, it is not open to the plaintiffs to take the
position that his son’s death was caused by the negligence of the defendants.
In the result, I find that the plaintiffs have also failed to prove causation.
Remaining Issues
71. In view of my conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the
Conclusion
72. That completes my judgment. I therefore dismiss the plaintiffs claim with
costs. I am well aware that the plaintiffs will find it very difficult to accept that
30
[2014] 1 LNS 542 Legal Network Series
there was no fault on behalf of the defendants as their son died whilst in
their care and management. It is indeed a tragic case, but medicine is not an
exact science and sometimes there is only so much doctors can do. It will never
be known with certainty what was the cause of his death as no autopsy was
done in this case. But, the evidence in this case shows that Dr Abdul Wahab
(S M KOMATHY SUPPIAH)
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur
Counsel: -
For the plaintiff - Kamalanathan Ratnam (Vinod Kamalanathan with him); M/s
Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates
For the 1 st defendant - Maidzuara Mohammed (Low Chinn Yi with him); M/s Raja,
Darryl & Loh
For the 2 nd defendant - T Tharumarajah (Ellaine Alexander with him); M/s Azim,
Tunku Farik & Wong
31