Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi.

1.0 Case Citation & Basic Information 

Case Name: Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi.

Citation: [2026] MLJU 447 (Malayan Law Journal Unreported). 

Court: Court of Appeal (Putrajaya), Malaysia. 

Date of Decision: 30 January 2026 

Bench: Supang Lian JCA, Shahnaz Sulaiman JCA, Mohd Radzi Harun HCJ.

2.0 Introduction 

This case concerns the law of medical negligence, particularly a medical practitioner’s duty of care, informed consent, standard of professional care, and the assessment of damages arising from negligent medical treatment.1 Medical negligence occupies an important place in tort law because it balances two competing interests, namely protecting patients from substandard medical treatment while allowing medical professionals to exercise clinical judgment without fear of unreasonable liability. The law therefore requires healthcare professionals to exercise the degree of skill and care expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same field.2 

Historically, the common law applied the Bolam test, established in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, whereby a doctor would not be considered negligent if his conduct was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion. Under this traditional approach, courts generally deferred to medical expertise when determining the appropriate standard of care.3 

The law gradually evolved towards recognising patient autonomy. A major turning point occurred in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, where the High Court of Australia held that doctors have a legal duty to disclose material risks associated with proposed treatment. The adequacy of disclosure became a legal question for the court rather than one determined solely by medical opinion.4 

Malaysia adopted this patient-centred approach in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593, where the Federal Court rejected the application of the Bolam test to the duty of disclosure and applied the principles in Rogers v Whitaker. The court recognised that patients have the right to make informed decisions regarding their medical treatment after being informed of all material risks and available alternatives.5 

The present case builds upon these established principles. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a doctor’s responsibility extends beyond technical competence to include obtaining proper informed consent, performing treatment according to the required professional standard, providing appropriate post-operative care, and ensuring that any damages awarded accurately reflect the losses caused by the negligence. The decision therefore represents a recent development in Malaysian medical negligence jurisprudence by applying established principles of informed consent and professional responsibility to a complex medical negligence claim involving extensive injuries and significant damages.6 

3.0 Material Facts of the Case 

The respondent, Jay Shree LC Doshi, brought a medical negligence claim in her personal capacity and as the executrix of her late husband’s estate against Dr. Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali, Dr. Normala binti Haji Basiron, and the Government of Malaysia. The deceased suffered from a recurrent neuroendocrine tumour (NET). Although a multidisciplinary tumour board recommended cryoablation, the first appellant proceeded with a Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) procedure without informing the deceased of the recommendation or the material risks involved.7 

On 21 December 2017, the RFA procedure resulted in a severe full-thickness burn to the deceased’s chest, causing extensive tissue damage. The deceased subsequently underwent prolonged treatment at private hospitals in Malaysia and Singapore, including wound management, antibiotic therapy, and major reconstructive surgery. He later died from complications of his underlying cancer, and the High Court found that his death was not caused by the appellants’ negligence.8 

The High Court held the first appellant negligent for failing to obtain informed consent, negligently performing the procedure, and providing inadequate post-operative care. Damages amounting to RM1,553,760.17 were awarded to the respondent. The appellants appealed against the quantum of damages, while the respondent cross-appealed seeking an increase in the general and aggravated damages awarded.9 

4.0 Legal Issues & Arguements 

4.1 Legal Issues 

1. Whether the High Court erred in awarding RM800,000 as general damages for pain and suffering on the ground that the amount was manifestly excessive. 
2. Whether the High Court correctly awarded special damages for the medical and travel expenses incurred by the respondent in Malaysia and Singapore. 
3. Whether the award of RM500,000 in aggravated damages against the first appellant was justified. 
4. Whether the High Court’s award of RM250,000 in costs was excessive.10

4.2 Appellants’ Arguments 

The appellants argued that the High Court had awarded damages that were manifestly excessive and unsupported by the evidence. They contended that the awards for general damages, special damages, aggravated damages, and costs should be reduced or set aside. In particular, they argued that the respondent’s decision to seek treatment at private hospitals in Malaysia and Singapore was voluntary and unreasonable, as similar treatment was available locally, and therefore the full amount of special damages should not be recoverable.11 

4.3 Respondent’s Arguments 

The respondent submitted that the High Court’s awards were fair and justified by the severity of the deceased’s injuries and the consequences of the first appellant’s negligence. She argued that the subsequent treatment at private hospitals was necessary because no viable treatment plan was available at the government hospital, making the expenses reasonably incurred. The respondent also maintained that the aggravated damages were warranted due to the first appellant’s lack of compassion, failure to disclose material risks, and conduct following the procedure12 

5.0 Holding 

The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the High Court’s awards of general damages and aggravated damages, holding that they were reasonable and justified by the severity of the deceased’s injuries and the conduct of the first appellant. However, the Court reduced the award of special damages, holding that the respondent was only entitled to recover one-third of the medical expenses incurred at private hospitals in Malaysia and Singapore because similar treatment was available locally. Consequently, the Court varied the award of special damages while affirming the High Court’s findings on liability and the remaining awards.13 

6.0 Ratio Decidendi 

The Court held that the award of RM800,000 in general damages was not excessive. It reasoned that the deceased suffered a severe full-thickness burn, underwent multiple painful procedures, extensive reconstructive surgery, and prolonged treatment. General damages should fairly compensate for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, and the High Court had properly assessed these factors.14 

With regard to special damages, the Court reaffirmed that such damages must be specifically pleaded, strictly proved, and reasonably incurred. Although the respondent was justified in seeking private treatment after the complications, the Court found that similar treatment was available in Malaysia. Applying the principles in Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai, the Court held that only one-third of the private medical expenses should be recoverable.15 

The Court also upheld the award of aggravated damages, holding that the first appellant’s conduct after the procedure,including his failure to show compassion, inadequate response to the deceased’s condition, and lack of remorse warranted a separate award. The Court relied on established principles that aggravated damages may be awarded where a defendant’s conduct aggravates the plaintiff’s suffering beyond the initial injury.16 Finally, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s award of costs, as no error in principle had been demonstrated by the appellants.17 

7.0 Critical Analysis 

The Court of Appeal’s decision is persuasive as it reinforces the importance of patient autonomy and the duty of medical practitioners to obtain informed consent before performing medical procedures. By upholding the findings of negligence and aggravated damages, the Court reaffirmed the principles established in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun, emphasising that patients are entitled to be informed of material risks and available treatment alternatives before consenting to treatment. 

However, the Court’s decision to reduce the award of special damages may be viewed as striking a balance between compensating the victim and preventing unreasonable recovery. By applying the principles in Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai, the Court recognised that although the respondent had legitimate reasons to seek private treatment, compensation should only extend to expenses that were reasonably incurred. Overall, the judgment provides useful guidance on informed consent, the assessment of damages, and the limits of recoverable medical expenses in Malaysian medical negligence claims. 

8.0 Conclusion 

In conclusion, Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi reaffirms the importance of informed consent, professional standards of care, and accountability in medical negligence claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the principles protecting patients’ rights while ensuring that damages awarded remain fair and reasonable. The decision provides valuable guidance on the assessment of general, special, and aggravated damages in future medical negligence cases. 

9.0 Reference(S):

Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447. 

Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593. 

Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. 

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. 

Thomas, M. (2009). Rogers v. Whitaker Lands on Malaysian Shores, Is There Now a Patient’s Right to Know in Malaysia? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. Kassim, P. N. (2015). Legal Developments on the Doctrine of Informed Consent in Malaysia: Challenges for the Future. International Islamic University Malaysia.

1 Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447.

2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL); Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. 

3 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. 

4 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 (High Court of Australia). 

5 Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593.

6Ibid. 

7 Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447. 

8Ibid. 

9Ibid.

10 Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447. 

11Ibid. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447.

14 Ahmad Faizal bin Mohamad Ali & Ors v Jay Shree LC Doshi (secara sendiri dan sebagai wasi dan pemegang amanah estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) [2026] MLJU 447. 

15 Ibid. 

16 Ibid. 

17 Ibid.