A break in the chain of causation must be substantiated with

evidence

 Lai Ping Alias Lai Wai Ping v Dr Lim Tye Ling & Ors

2nd Defendant alleged that one Dr Sheshan Lim is a novus actus interveniens

[57] As earlier mentioned, the 2nd Defendant also relied on the defence of novus

actus interveniens in the alternative since the Plaintiff sought and received

treatment at Tung Shin Hospital after her self-discharge from Pantai Cheras

Medical Centre on 24 July 2006.

[59] It was stressed by the 2nd Defendant that the Plaintiff's left eye had perception

of light at the time when she first went to Tung Shin Hospital on 24.7.2006, and that

hypotony developed only after the procedures carried out by Dr Seshan Lim. As

the Plaintiff subsequently lost her vision in the left eye in June 2007, it was

submitted that there was a break in the chain of causation.

[60] There was no credible evidence adduced to suggest that Dr Seshan Lim was

responsible for the Plaintiff's blindness. I therefore would have rejected this

defence.

 Gurisha Taranjeet Kaur (an infant suing by her father and litigation

representative, Taranjeet Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh) & Anor v Dr Premitha

Damodaran & Anor [2020] MLJU 519

[143] … D1 alleges that there was break in the chain of causation from the

time Mdm. Baljeet suffered the perineal and vaginal tears as a result of the

delivery and the injury as found by Dr Hu Shan as reported in her report dated

19.6.2014. D1 alleges the injury was caused by Mdm. Baljeet undertaking

excessive physical exercise after delivery or that exercises caused the

bleeding.

[144] However, D1 failed to support her allegation that the injury was caused

by Mdm. Baljeet undertaking excessive physical exercise after delivery or that

exercises caused the bleeding. D1 did not provide any evidence showing that

Mdm. Baljeet undertook exercises in the 5 weeks after delivery or that the

bleeding was caused by exercises instead of the perineal and vaginal tears

suffered during delivery. D1’s witness, the lactation consultant, Elizabeth

Pithchaimuthu (SD6) testified that Mdm. Baljeet had asked her about exercises,

planking and wall-pumping, after she had seen Dr Hu Shan at Damansara

Specialist Hospital. SD6 testified that before seeing Dr Hu Shan, Mdm. Baljeet did

not ask her about exercise and that she mainly asked about breast feeding.

[145] D1 had a duty of care to correctly to identify, treat and managed the injuries

suffered by Mdm. Baljit as a result of the delivery. For the reasons above, I find that

she had failed to discharge this duty according to the requisite standard of care and

this failure had caused Mdm. Baljeet to suffer the injuries detailed by Dr Hu Shan in

her report dated 19.6.2014; which injuries required the repair the operation to be

undertaken by Dr Hu Shan.
[146] Further, I find that D1 had failed to discharge the burden of proving her

claim that there was a break in the chain of causation from the time Mdm.

Baljeet suffered the perineal and vaginal tears during the delivery and the

injuries detailed in Dr Hu Shan’s report.