JUDGMENT
Raus Sharif CJ:
Introduction
[1] This appeal arose from a claim by the husband and children of the late Madam Hoh Pau Yu ("the deceased") against Dr Michael Samy, a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist ("the 1st respondent"), and Gleneagles Hospital (KL) Sdn Bhd ("the 2nd respondent"). The deceased passed away in the Gleneagles Intan Medical Centre ("the Hospital"), a private hospital owned and operated by the 2nd respondent, after a childbirth attended to by the 1st respondent.
[2] Leave to appeal was granted by this court on 5 December 2013 for the following questions of law:
Question 1
If a doctor is aware of a dearth of medical knowledge in a particularly unconventional treatment, the potential risks involved and the contraindications which resonate against it, is that doctor under an obligation to advise a patient of these facts to enable that patient to decide whether to refuse or accept that particular treatment?
(if the answer is in the affirmative);
Question 2
Would the risks and the contraindications associated with that particular treatment be considered sufficiently material in nature to warrant an appropriate warning in the context of the decisions in Foo Fio Na v. Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2006] 2 MLRA 410; [2007] 1 MLJ 593; [2007] 1 CLJ 229; [2002] 2 AMR 1524; Rogers v. Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479?
(and if so);
Question 3
Did the risks manifest in such a fashion to indicate a causal connection in the context of the decision in Rosenberg v. Percival [2001] 205 CLR 434?
[3] Having heard the full appeal on 26 March 2018, we adjourned the matter for decision. We now give our decision as follows.
Material Facts
[4] The deceased was an advocate and solicitor. The 1st appellant is the husband of the deceased, whereas the 2nd and 3rd appellants are her children. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are minors claiming through their father and next friend, the 1st appellant. The appellants' claims against the respondents are brought under s 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 for loss of dependency and damages.