Ophthalmologist loses appeal, to pay RM1.3mil after mechanic left blind

2026-03-12 - 09:25

The Court of Appeal has affirmed an ophthalmologist’s liability to T Loganathan who was granted RM200,000 in general damages, RM500,000 in aggravated damages, and almost RM585,000 for future treatment and partial loss of future income. PUTRAJAYA: An ophthalmologist lost his appeal at the Court of Appeal and must pay nearly RM1.3 million in damages after being found liable for medical negligence that left a mechanic blind in his left eye five years ago. A three-member appeals court bench chaired by Justice Choo Kah Sing said the High Court judge did not err in fact or law in concluding that the eye surgeon was liable, after accepting plaintiff T Loganathan’s version of events. The High Court had awarded Loganathan RM200,000 in general damages for pain and suffering, RM500,000 in aggravated damages, and almost RM585,000 for future medication, treatment and partial loss of future income. “The quantum of damages is not excessive nor too low. There is no error in the award,” said Choo, who sat with Justices Shahnaz Sulaiman and Latifah Tahar. The bench also awarded Loganathan RM30,000 in costs. Lawyer Balakrishna Balaravi Pillai appeared for Loganathan, while counsel Fazleeza Azli and Goh Lee Ding represented the doctor. In his statement of claim, Loganathan said he had used a hammer in the course of work to open part of an engine compressor, when a hard object struck his left eye and caused it to bleed. He was taken to a private clinic on July 6, 2011, but later was taken on advice to a private hospital in Ipoh where the doctor, named as the sole defendant in the case, examined him. The doctor performed a minor surgery on the eyelid to stitch up the wound. The following day, the doctor conducted another surgery under general anaesthesia, following which Loganathan’s eye was bandaged. The doctor had informed Loganathan that there was no foreign body in the injured eye and assured him that the eye would heal completely. On July 8, when the bandage was opened, Loganathan complained that he was experiencing immense pain and informed the doctor that the vision in his left eye was blurry. However, the doctor assured him there was nothing to be worried about, and that the vision would improve in two to three days. Loganathan was in the hospital until July 11 that year. The doctor claimed in his defence that he had ordered a CT scan for Loganathan after he complained of pain, which Loganathan refused to undergo. The doctor also claimed that Loganathan was told to seek treatment in Kuala Lumpur but instead went to Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, a government hospital, for further examination and treatment. He was later referred to Selayang Hospital, but still suffered from glaucoma and loss of vision. In his judgment, High Court judge Bhupindar Singh, noted the doctor had initially claimed that the injury was the result of a motor accident, which he did not believe. The judge also found that the doctor had fraudulently tampered with Loganathan’s medical records by inserting post-dated entries to make it seem that the CT scan was ordered by him but refused by Loganathan. The judge observed that the failure to conduct the scan caused the foreign object in the patient’s left eye to go undetected, and resulted in an omission of intravitreal antibiotics that might have prevented infection. The resulting infection then caused Loganathan to develop glaucoma and loss of vision. Bhupindar noted that none of the private hospital’s staff or nurses was called to shed light on the medical records. “Consequently, this court finds that there is credible evidence in support of the plaintiff’s contentions that post-event entries were made to the medical records,” the judge said. Bhupindar said the defendant took one-and-a-half years to provide the medical records to the plaintiff despite letters sent by Loganathan’s lawyers. He said the private hospital took custody of the original medical records after being aware of the civil suit. “The despicable conduct of the defendant in fabricating the medical records justifies the awarding of aggravated damages,” he added.