Ng Lay Heong v 1. ) Loh Guan Lye & Sons Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr. Teoh Mei Shi

pa-23ncvc-28-11-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 22 January 2026 • PA-23NCvC-28-11/2021 • 30 min read

45 cases cited (0 SG, 45 foreign)

Catchwords

1. The Plaintiff, as beneficiary of Lee Ah Eng, the deceased (Deceased), commenced this civil action which arose from the medical treatment rendered to the Deceased patient at the 1st Defendant’s (D1) hospital, in which the 2nd Defendant (D2) was the medical practitioner and/or treating specialist. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had breached their respective duties of care in relation to the management, communication, and disclosure of the Deceased’s radiological findings, which allegedly resulted in delayed diagnosis, loss of treatment opportunity, and finally led to the death of the Deceased. 2. At the end of the trial, this Court found that on a balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has failed to establish liability, particularly against D2. The Plaintiff failed to prove that there was a breach of the applicable standard of care or omission caused or materially contributed to the Deceased’s deterioration or death.

Judges (1)

Suzana binti Muhamad Said Delivered

Counsel (9)

Chan Ban Eng & Co Firm Chan, De Vries & Co. Firm Mureli Navaratnam Firm Amier Fitri Counsel Defendant Chan Szu Fu Counsel Plaintiff Farhana Counsel Plaintiff Ho Sze Yee Counsel Defendant Loh Jia Chun Counsel Defendant Mureli Navaratnam Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Loh Guan Lye & Sons Sdn Bhd Defendant Dr. Teoh Mei Shi Defendant Ng Lay Heong Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (45)

UK (2)

[1957] 1 WLR 583 [1957] 2 All ER 118

MY (43)

[1995] 3 MLRH 196 [1995] 4 CLJ 670 [1995] 4 MLJ 673 [1998] 1 CLJ 533 [1998] 1 MLJ 57 [2001] 2 MLRH 101 [2001] 3 MLJ 725 [2001] 4 CLJ 380 [2007] 1 AMR 621 [2007] 1 CLJ 229 [2007] 1 MLJ 593 [2009] 5 MLRH 93 [2009] MLJU 1429 [2010] 1 MLRH 956 [2010] 10 CLJ 322 [2010] 2 AMR 326 [2010] 2 MLJ 646 [2010] 3 AMR 299 [2010] 5 CLJ 764 [2011] 1 CLJ 229 [2011] 3 MLJ 506 [2013] 5 MLJ 360 [2013] 6 CLJ 958 [2014] 4 AMR 301 [2014] 4 MLJ 465 [2014] 6 CLJ 269 [2016] 3 AMR 625 [2016] 3 MLJ 742 [2016] 6 CLJ 225 [2017] 5 MLJ 438 [2017] 8 CLJ 605 [2017] AMEJ 1565 [2018] 1 AMR 209 [2018] 3 CLJ 427 [2018] 3 MLJ 281 [2018] AMEJ 1297 [2018] MLJU 1567 [2020] 10 CLJ 322 [2020] 5 MLJ 185 [2020] 6 AMR 429 [2020] 9 CLJ 192 [2025] 2 CLJ 824 [2025] 9 MLJ 22

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-23ncvc-28-11-2021)