IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)

Volume 14, Issue 3 (Jul. - Aug. 2013), PP 82-87

e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.Iosrjournals.Org

Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative

study.
Md. Zahidul Islam
LL.B (Eastern University), MCL (IIUM), Ph.D (Pursuing in IIUM) Postgraduate Student, Ahmad Ibrahim
Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)

Abstract: The issue of Medical negligence is extremely important factor for patient. Instances of negligence in
the medical profession are not a new phenomenon. Medical Negligence is being committed in all over the world
every day. The main purpose of this Study is to focus how Medical Negligence is being committed in Bangladesh
and Malaysia. The article also attempts to highlight and discuss the reforming the existing system. It is
qualitative research. Primary and secondary resources are used in this paper. The information has been taken
from many readings, articles, books, case law and status. The result is that Bangladesh and Malaysia is
following Medical Negligence from long time ago. We have many problems to solve this situation. The issue is
more vibrant in a society like Malaysia and Bangladesh where the problem of medical Negligence is still
considered to be the result misfortune, and people superstitiously believe that the affect of Medical Negligence
is considered sometimes to be the result of sin on the part of the parents of the patient. It is expected that the
present study assist to facilitate improvement of the legal regime of the Medical Negligence and the enforcement
of laws for the better future of the Medical Negligence of Bangladesh and Malaysia.
Keywords: Bangladesh, Comparative Study, Medical Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Malaysia.

I. Introduction
In the present situation, Medical Negligence is very well-known word. It is happening all over the
world every day. Patients are suffering very much for this. For example, when someone dies by medical
negligence and he is the only one earning member of his family, how will we fulfil the loss of that family? So, it
is very important that we should aware about medical negligence. Here I have compared the position of medical
negligence between Bangladesh and Malaysia. Why I have chosen them to compare. The reason is, Malaysia is
a common law country like Bangladesh. Malaysia is not only common law country but also Muslim Country
like Bangladesh. Most of the people of them are Muslim. In addition, Malaysia was a colony of British like
Bangladesh. They also adopted their law from British. So that, Bangladesh and Malaysia has many similarities.

II. Conceptual analysis

The Word “negligence”, when used in the law of torts means more than mere carelessness. Many years
ago, Baron Alderson said that, Negligence is the omission to do something which a sound and careful man
cannot do.1 L.B Curzon, in Dictionary of Law defined the term „Negligence‟ as a breach of legal duty to take
care, resulting in damage to the climate which was not desired by the defendant. In the case of Blyth vs.
Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)11 EX.78, the concept „negligence‟ was define as the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Medical
Negligence means medical malpractice. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. In this case defined negligence in
the following terms:
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”2
Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which
the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community. For this patient
are suffering by injury or death. Standards and regulations for medical malpractice are different from one
country to another country. Some countries have adopted some special law for medical negligence and some
countries are following the provision of Penal Code. A plaintiff must establish all four elements of the tort of
negligence for a successful medical malpractice claim.3 (1) A duty of care was owned by the physician; (2) The

1
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, 11 Ex 781 (1856).
2
S Radhakrishnan, Medical Negligence, 4 MLJ 1, 8 (2002).
3
“The Four Elements of Medical Malpractice” Yale new Haven Medical Center: Issues in risk Management.1997
www.iosrjournals.org 82 | Page
Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative study.

physician violated the applicable standard of care; (3) the person suffered compensable injury; (4) the injury was
caused in fact and proximately caused by the substandard conduct.
We should discuss „duty of care‟ and „standard of care‟. The concept of negligence presupposes a duty
of care. It is obvious that without having a duty to take care a person shall not be held liable. So, there must have
been a „duty‟ and that duty must be done „carefully‟. In the case of Le Lievre vs. Gould [1893] 1 Q.B.
491,497,504, A.L. Smith, LJ held that a duty to take care did arise when the person or property of one
was in such proximity to the person or property of another that, if due care was not taken, damage might be done
by the one to the other. Again the mare fact that a man is injured by another‟s act gives in itself no cause of
action unless there is mens rea (It is a Latin term. Meaning is “guilty mind”; guilty knowledge or intention to
commit a prohibited act). If the act involves lack of care, no cases of actionable negligence will arise unless the
duty to be careful exists.4
In order to succeed in a claim of negligence, the victim must further prove, on a balance of
probabilities that the conduct of the doctor falls below the required standard of care. The meaning of standard of
care is reasonable care. If a person achieves the reasonable care properly by the doctor, he will not able to get
remedies under common law.5

III. Medical Negligence in Malaysia

A. Malaysian Law:
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia considers the health issues very seriously. The Federal
Constitution extensively covers this issue. Part-II (Art.5-13) of Federal Constitution of Malaysia discusses about
fundamental liberties. Article 5(1) of this part lays down that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty saves in accordance with law. Part II concerns with judicially enforceable rights subject to such
restrictions as mentioned in those provisions. If any of these rights are infringed the victim or the aggrieved
person can go to the High Court Division.6 So that, According to Malaysian Federal Constitution, if any person
deprived from proper treatment, he or she will able to go court for protect his health. Medical Negligence is
being committed in Malaysia from the beginning like other countries. There is no special Act for medical
negligence in Malaysia. Currently, the tort system is using to regulate medical negligence in Malaysia. This
system provides compensation only. The tort system is being adversarial in nature. The job of the court is to do
fair dealing based on the available evidence and the law. In reality, in sometimes happen that litigation fails to
achieve real justice for this adversarial system. There are many Acts which discuss about health protection
against medical negligence. Section 304A of the Malaysian penal code explains that, If any person die by doing
any rash or negligent act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both. According to this section, if any patient is being died by any negligent of the doctor, he
or she will be convicted under this section. Moreover, a doctor can be convicted under section 301,302 and 304
of the Penal code. If a doctor commits any miscarriage without the consent of the woman, he or she will also
liable under this Act.7
If a medical officer or a registered medical practitioner believes on reasonable grounds that a child he is
examining or treating is physically or emotionally injured as a result of being ill-treated, neglected, abandoned
or exposed, or is sexually abused, he shall immediately inform a protector (protector means the Director
General, the Deputy Director General, a divisional Director of Social Welfare, the state Director of Social
Welfare of each of the state, any Social Welfare Officer appointed under section 8)8. If the officer or medical
officer or registered medical practitioner fails to inform, he or she shall be convicted under this section.9
Section 19(2) of the Medical Act 1971 empowers the council to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over
medical practitioners who is convicted of a punishable offence with imprisonment, found guilty of “infamous
conduct in any professional respect.10 Any members of the public can Complaint against medical negligence to
the president of the MMC with the name of the practitioners, the place of practice, nature and details of
complaint and documents and evidence in support of the complaint.11 Malaysia Medical Council Will makes
three Preliminary Investigation Committees (PICs). MMC holds a tribunal to inquire into the complains about
medical professionals. One of the Preliminary Investigation Committees is specifically assigned to look into

4
Md.Ershadul Karim, Examining Liabilities Arising from Doctor‟s Negligence, 16 Dhaka University Law Journal166 (2005).
5
Putery Nemie Jahan kassim, Medical Negligence Law in Malaysia, 29 (Rev.2008).
6
Federal Constitution of Malaysia, art.5, para.2.
7
The Penal Code, §313 (Act no. 574)
8
Child Act, §2 (2001).
9
Id. at § 27.
10
The Phrase “infamous conduct in any professional respect” was fined in1894 by Lord Justice Lopez in Allinson v The General Council of
Medical Education and Registration, 1 QB, 750 (1894).
11
The procedure disciplinary enquiries are outline in Regulations 26 to 33 of the Medical Regulations 1974 and guided by the code of
professional conduct.
www.iosrjournals.org 83 | Page
Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative study.

matters pertaining to advertisement and other two look into matters of ethics and conduct.12 PICs can instantly
dismiss an allegation if it is found to be indefensible.13 On the other hand, PICs may recommend an injury by
the MMC, if they find reasonable ground to support allege.14 MMC may take disciplinary action, if a doctor is
found guilty of “infamous conduct in a Professional respect” during the inquiry.15 If any party is displeased by
the decision of the MMC, he or she may appeal to the High Court.16

B. Health Related Cases before the Malaysian Courts:

There are many cases were filed in Malaysian Court regarding health. Most of the time, health related
cases were filed for medical negligence committed by the doctor. In Chelliah a/l Manickam & Anor v. Kerajaan
Malaysia17, the High Court held that the defendant (Doctor) was vicariously liable for the acts of the doctors at
Penang General Hospital. The Doctor Involved had wrongly diagnosed an acute perforated appendicitis. The
treatment for pancreatitis are different, namely in the case of acute appendicitis, the treatment in surgical
intervention whereas for acute pancreatitis is conservative treatment.18 In Chin Keow v Government of
Malaysia,19 a doctor was held negligent for not inquiring the medical history of the patient. In Chin Yoon Hiap
(Dr.) v Ng Eu Khoon & 2 ors,20 the plaintiff (Patient or his/her guardian) sued Dr Smith and Dr Chin for
negligence and claim damages for pain and suffering and for causing the plaintiff‟s blindness. The trial judge
held that Dr Chin was negligent and he appealed against this decision. On this issue of whether Dr Chin was
negligent, the Court of Appeal held that he was not.21 This case was held about anaesthetist. The plaintiff
claimed that the negligence was held during the pre-operative sigmoidoscopic examination. Here the question
was whether it was proper for the anaesthetist to perform sigmoidoscopis examination under general
anaesthesia. In this case Court took expert opinion. Then the Court observed that the anaesthetist had previously
successfully performed hundreds of sigmoidoscopis examination under general anaesthesia. Thus, applying the
Bolam principle22 (according to this principle, a doctor is not negligent if he has acted with a practice accepted
as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art.)23 to this issue, the court held that
the anaesthetist was not negligent as he had followed the general and approved practice in the situation he was
facing. The technique he adopted was approved by a reasonable body of medical men since 1956. Therefore, it
did not matter if there is another body of opinion that would have taken a contrary view. 24 On the other hand, in
Kamalam a/p Ruman & Ors v Eastern Plantation Agency (Johore) Sdn Bhd Ulu Tiram Estate, Ulu Tiram,
Johore & Anor,25 the court refused to apply the Bolam Principle. In this case, the court created that the doctor
had failed to provide the standard of care and so that, the victim died. A ruling was declared by the Federal
Court in Foo FioNa v Dr Soo fook Mun & Anor26 that, the practitioner is duly bound by law to inform his
patient about the risk of treatment who is capable of understanding and appreciating such information of the
risk.27

C. Case Limitation in Malaysia:

Litigation procedure is so long from lower court to Federal Court of Malaysia (Federal Court is highest
Court of Malaysia). For example, in the case of Dr Chin Yoon Hiap v Ng Eu Khoon & Ors and other appeals28,
the court took about 16 years to come to an end. It was initiated on December 1981 whereas the judgement was
delivered on November 1997. If we calculate the time when the cause of action arose, the duration would be 21
years because the cause of action arose on January 1976. In addition, in Foo Fio Na v Hospital Assunta &
Anor29, the court took 24 years. The cause of action arose on July 1982 and the judgement was delivered by the

12
Nik Rosnah Wan Abdullah, Regulating the Private Health Sector in Malaysia, 129 (2005).
13
Regulation 28 of the Medical Regulations 1974.
14
Regulation 29 of the Medical Regulations 1974.
15
According to the powers given by section 30 of the Medical Act 1971.
16
The Medical Act, § 31(1) (1971); Puteri Nemie bt. Jahn Kassim. Medical Negligence Litigation in Malaysia : Current Trend and
Proposals for Reform. Available from: http://mdm.org.my/downloads/dr_puteri_nemie.pdf, accessed on January 2 nd, 2013.
17
Chelliah a/l Manickam & Anor v. Kerajaan Malaysia, 2 AMR 1856 (1997).
18
Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Medical Negligence Law in Malaysia, 82 (Rev.2008); Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Law and Ethics Relating to
Medical profession, 106 (1 st ed.2007).
19
Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia, 2 MLJ 45 (1967).
20
Chin Yoon Hiap (Dr.) v Ng Eu Khoon & 2 ors, 1 All ER 871. 873 [1997]
21
Elizabeth Choo v Government of Malaysia, 2 MLJ 171 (1970).
22
Bolam Case, 1 MLJ 484 (2002) ; 5 MLJ 167 (2002).
23
Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Medical Negligence Law in Malaysia 30 (Rev.2008).
24
Ibid. at pp.46-47.
25
Kamalam a/p Ruman & Ors v Eastern Plantation Agency (Johore) Sdn Bhd Ulu Tiram Estate, Ulu Tiram, Johore & Anor, 4 MLJ 674
(1996).
26
Foo FioNa v Dr Soo fook Mun & Anor, 1 MLJ 593 (2007).
27
Ibid. at para. 36.
28
Dr Chin Yoon Hiap v Ng Eu Khoon & Ors and other, 1 MLJ 57 (1998).
29
Foo Fio Na v Hospital Assunta & Anor , 6 MLJ 738 (1999).
www.iosrjournals.org 84 | Page
Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative study.

honourable High Court in October 199930 and the decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in April 2001.31
Against the decision of the Court of Appeal, an application for leave to appeal to Federal Court was made in
November 2001.32 The Federal Court finally delivered its judgement on the 29th December 2006. It can be seen
that the entire litigation process for medical negligence case requires an average of about of a minimum period
of 15 years, from the date of injury to the conclusion of the case. 33

IV. Medical Negligence in Bangladesh

A. Bangladeshi Law:
The Constitution of the People‟s Republic of Bangladesh considers the health issue very seriously like
Malaysia. Constitution comprehensively covers this issue. According to Bangladesh Constitution health is a
fundamental right and if any person deprived from his fundamental rights, he or she will able to go High Court
Division of the Supreme Court.34 Medical Negligence is being occurred from long time in Bangladesh like other
countries. There is no special law for medical negligence. Tort system is not following for medical negligence in
Bangladesh. Penal Cade is being used for medical negligence litigation. The criminal cases against the doctors
were registered under section 304 of penal code, 1860 (Culpable homicide amount to murder) and 304A of the
Penal code 1860(rash and negligence act) against the doctor.35 When people are affected by medical negligence,
they file case under Penal Code. For Example, if any person dies due to medical negligence, his guardian files
case for murder under Penal Code. For example, Asma was a patient. She affected by medical negligence. Her
mother filed a suit against doctors under Section 307 (Attempt to murder), 326 (Voluntarily causing Grievous
hurt by dangerous weapons) of penal code. 36
Where a patient died due to the negligent medical treatment of the doctor, the doctor can be liable to
pay compensation under civil law and at the same time, if the degree of negligence is so gross and his act was
reckless as to endanger the life of the patient, he would also be made criminally liable for offence under section
304A of the Penal Code, 1860.37 Under this section accused (doctor) shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both. 38 Doctor should use
poisonous substance carefully. Under section 284, if any doctor uses any poisonous substance rashly or
negligently which endanger to human life any person, such doctor shall be punished with imprisonment of either
explanation for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand taka, or
with both.39 Section 323 of Penal Code 1860 describe that, if doctor execute any offence for voluntary causing
hurt, he will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, which may extend to one thousand taka, or with both. According to section 325 of Penal Code1860, if
doctor commits any offence for voluntary causing grievous hurt, he will be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 40Moreover, many
cases have been filed under different section of Penal Code. For example, in 3rd September 2006, a case has
been filed in Mohammad pure police station under section 406/420/170/326/109 of The Penal Code 1860.41
The Medical and Dental Council are being established by the provision of section 3 of the Medical and
Dental Council Act 1980.42 It has been repealed by The Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act 2010. Now
Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (BMDC) is being established by the provision of section 3 of the
Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act 2010.43 Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (BMDC) gets its
financial and administrative manpower support from the Ministry of Health. The council is body corporate. The
functions of the BMDC are to maintain a resister of medical practitioners in Bangladesh, to encourage and
maintain standards of practice of medical practitioners and to examine complaints made against practitioners
and administration of disciplinary provisions. The member of the MMC are drawn from many sources, namely,
nominated eight Parliament Members by the Speaker of Parliament, members of different associations
(Bangladesh Medical Association, Bangladesh Private Medical Practitioners Association), appointed member

30
An application for leave to appeal to Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dr Soo Fook Mun v Foo Fia Na & anor
2 CLJ 457 (2001) . The Federal Court its judgment on the 29 th December 2006, after a delay of over four and a half years.
31
The judgement can be found in in Dr Soo Fook Mun v Foo Fia Na & anor 2 CLJ 457 (2001).
32
This can be found in Foo Fia Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun &Anor, 2 MLJ 129 (2002)
33
Puteri Nemie bt. Jahn Kassim. Medical Negligence Litigation in Malaysia : Current Trend and Proposals for Reform. Available from:
http://mdm.org.my/downloads/dr_puteri_nemie.pdf, accessed on January 2nd, 2013.
34
Bangladesh Const. art. 44, para. 1.
35
Md.Ershadul Karim, Examining Liabilities Arising from Doctor‟s Negligence, 16 Dhaka University Law Journal166 (2005).
36
Ain O Salishi Kandro, Medical Negligence, 12 (2008).
37
Md.Ershadul Karim, Examining Liabilities Arising from Doctor‟s Negligence, 16 Dhaka University Law Journal 166 (2005).
38
The Penal Code, §304A (1860).
39
Ibid. §284.
40
Ibid. §325.
41
Ain O Salishi Kandro, Medical Negligence, 95 (2008).
42
The Medical and Dental Council Act, § 3 (1980).
43
Bangladesh Medical and dental Council Act, § 3 (2010).
www.iosrjournals.org 85 | Page
Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative study.

from the public services and nomination by Universities.44 The members shall office for not more than three
years. Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council narrate its functions, procedures and disciplinary jurisdiction in
their Medical Ethics. Any Medical or Dental Practitioners convicted for false pretences, forgery, fraud, theft,
indecent behaviour or assault, is liable to disciplinary action by the council.45

B. Health Related Cases before the Bangladeshi Courts:

There is no judgement of High Court of Bangladesh regarding medical negligence. Here, I have
mentioned cases regarding medical negligence which were committed many years back this area. The accused, a
Homoeopathic practitioner, administered to a patient suffering from a guinea worm, 24 drops of stramonium and
a leaf of dhatura without studying it effect; the patient died of poisoning. The accused was held guilty under
section 304A of Penal Code, 1860.46 Moreover, compounder in order to make up a fever mixture took a bottle
from a cupboard where non-poisonous medicines were kept and without reading the label of the bottle which
was in it wrapper added its full content to a mixture which was administered to eight persons out of whom seven
died. The bottle was marked poison and contained strychnine hydrochloride and not quinine hydrochloride as
was supposed. It was held that the compounder was guilty under section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860. 47
To be criminal in nature, the negligence must be wilful, wanton, gross or culpable. For criminal
malpractice the doctor may be prosecuted by the police and charged in criminal court under sections 304A and
337 of the Penal Cade, 1860 which deals with causing death by negligence. The provisions of section 304A
apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death, and no knowledge that the act done in all probability
would cause death.48 A hakim (native physician) performed an operation of the eye with an ordinary pair of
scissors and sutured the wound with an ordinary thread and needle. The instruments used were not disinfected
and the complainant‟s eye-sight was permanently damaged. It was held that the hakim had acted rashly and
negligently, and was guilty under section 336 of the Penal Code, 1860 as there was no permanent privation of
the sight of the eye.49 In addition, many cases have been filed at many places in Bangladesh. For example,
General Register case no.13 (2)2002 (under section 326 of The Penal Code 1860) of khulshi police station of
Chittagong, Complain case no. 35(2)99 (under section 304A/338/287/34 of The Penal Code 1860) of Dhaka
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, General Register case no. 35(9)99 (under section 304A/338/287of The
Penal Code 1860) of Ramna police station. Due to carelessness of victim most of the case filed under medical
negligence fail to proceed.

C. Case Limitation in Bangladesh:

Litigation procedure is so long from lower court to Appellate Division of Supreme Court. We need 10-
15 years for final judgement from Appellate Division of Supreme Court. There is no judgement from Appellate
Division of Supreme Court about medical negligence because it is long procedure and expensive. Moreover, the
patients are poor and less powerful than doctors. Most of the time, doctors settle the case by giving lump sum
money to the patients family.

V. Comparison
The judicial system of Malaysia and Bangladesh is adversarial. The adversarial litigation systems has
been said to be uncooperative both to the doctors and patients. Compensation via negligence is substandard.
According to report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation of England, the proportion
of successful claims for damages in tort is much lower for medical negligence.50
The Judicial system of Malaysia and Bangladesh is also so long-lasting as well as expensive. Mainly,
case regarding medical negligence in Malaysia is civil law based. If the defendant is guilty, he has to
compensate. Here the plaintiff is getting financial benefit but most of the compensation is given by the hospital
authority where the defendant was employee. That means defendant is not suffering. For this reason, he or she
will not aware about medical negligence. On the other hand, medical negligence case of Bangladesh is criminal
law based. If the defendant is guilty by the evidence, he has to penalise. Here, the plaintiff is not getting any
compensation or benefit. It can be suggested that special law containing civil and criminal liability of doctor as
well as authority under which such doctor is acting should be enacted to mitigate number of medical negligent
cases. Apart from that proper authority should take necessary steps to reduce this wrong by increasing public
awareness.

44
Ibid, §4
45
Code of Medical Ethics, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (2010).
46
Md.Ershadul Karim, Examining Liabilities Arising from Doctor‟s Negligence, 16 Dhaka University Law Journal 166 (2005).
47
De Souza, 42All 272. (1920)
48
Sukaroo Kobiraj, 14 cal 566 (1887).
49
Gulam Hyder Punjabi, 17 Bom LR 384, 39 Bom 523 (1951).
50
Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Personal Injury, London: HMSO, vol.1, Cmnd.7054, 1978, at Para. 1337.
www.iosrjournals.org 86 | Page
Medical Negligence in Malaysia and Bangladesh: A comparative study.

VI. Conclusion
It is our strong belief that doctors, generally, is pledge bound by the solemn oath of the health
professionals and we entrust them with our lives which they take utmost care to protect and preserve. But it may
sometimes happen that due to some difficulties, workload, inventions of scientific instrument, amendment of
national legislation, the doctors do something which amount to negligence. The doctor should be aware of the
legal consequences of such situation so that they act dutifully and meticulously and avoid landing themselves in
controversies and litigations.

Bibliography
[1]. Nik Rosnah Wan Abdullah. Regulating the Private Health Sector in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaysia Press; 2005.
[2]. Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim. Medical Negligence Law in Malaysia. Malaysia: Laser Press; Rev.2008.
[3]. Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Law and Ethics Relating to Medical profession, Malaysia: Laser Press; 2007.
[4]. Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Medical Negligence in Malaysia, Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell Asia; 2009.
[5]. Md.Ershadul Karim. Examining Liabilities Arising from Doctor‟s Negligence. Dhaka University Law Journal 2005; 16: 151-182.
[6]. Puteri Nemie bt. Jahn Kassim. Medical Negligence Litigation in Malaysia: Current Trend and Proposals for Reform. Available
from: http://mdm.org.my/downloads/dr_puteri_nemie.pdf, accessed on January 2nd, 2013.
[7]. Radhakrishnan. Medical Negligence. MLJ 1 2002; 4: 1-8.
[8]. Ain O Salishi Kandro. Medical Negligence. Dhaka: Sahitto Prokas; 2008.
[9]. M.C Gupta. Health and Law: a Guide for Professionals and Activists. New Delhi: Kanishka Publication; 2002.
[10]. Malcolm Khan, Michelle Robson. Medical Negligence. London: Cavendish Publishing; 1997.
[11]. Michael A. Jones. Medical Negligence. London: Thomson Reuters; 2008.

www.iosrjournals.org 87 | Page