breaks

Negligent circumcision case: Youth gets RM3.1 million in damages

negligent-circumcision-case:-youth-gets-rm3.1-million-in-damages

KUALA LUMPUR: A 22 -year -old man who had his penis cut off during circumcision 12 years ago, received RM3.1 million in damages after the High Court here today allowed his suit against the Malaysian government and four others.

Also named as defendants in the suit are the medical officer and director of Kuala Lipis Hospital in Pahang as well as specialist doctors and the director of Selayang Hospital in Selangor.

Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir made the decision after ruling that all the defendants had been negligent in the circumstances experienced by the young man as a plaintiff.

He said the court allowed special damages as stated in the pleading, namely RM108,356, general damages of RM2 million, aggravated damages of RM500,000, exemplary damages of RM500,000 and costs of RM100,000 paid to the plaintiff by all the defendants.

Akhtar made the decision in an online proceeding through the Zoom application which was also joined by lawyer Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar on behalf of the plaintiff and Federal Counsel Saravanan Kuppusamy who represented the defendant.

A total of three plaintiff witnesses and five defendant witnesses testified in the trial which began Sept 22, 2020.

Mohamad Zainuddin and Saravanan when contacted by reporters confirmed the decision today.

Saravanan, however, said his party would seek further instructions on whether to appeal the decision.

On 20 Feb 2019, the High Court allowed the defendant’s application to quash the suit.

However, the Court of Appeal on Feb 20, 2020 ordered the case to be tried after allowing the plaintiff’s appeal to set aside the High Court’s decision.

On 19 July 2018, the plaintiff filed a suit through his mother and claimed the circumcision process on 13 Dec 2010 was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure when the entire head of his penis was cut off causing him to suffer permanent disability when his penis could not be reconnected.

As a result of the permanent disability, the plaintiff who at the time of the incident was 10 years old had changed his attitude to be very reticent and did not like to be friends with his peers.

-BERNAMA

Leave a Reply