loss of potential patients. [13] The Plaintiff also informed that based the summary of monthly dental income for his clinic for Financial Year of 2021 [see pages 18 of Plaintiff’s Additional Bundle of Documents (Enclosure 22)] that from the month of January to March 2021, the average income of his clinic per month is RM97,460.00. However, since the publication of the defamatory statements by the Defendant in May 2021, the average monthly income has decreased to RM59,164.38 per month (or RM306,364.96 from May 2021 to December 2021), which tantamount to a decrease of revenue of 39.29%. [14] The Plaintiff contended that there were also a lot of patients who had previously called up the Plaintiff’s clinic to make inquiry and showed interest in getting treatment from his clinic but decided not to get treatment from the Plaintiff’s clinic. Upon further inquiry, they informed the Plaintiff’s staffs that they have seen the Facebook posts published by the Defendant and/or shared by other Facebook users and decided not to get treatment from the Plaintiff’s clinic as they were worried about being charged with unreasonable price. [15] Apart from that, the Plaintiff had submitted that there was a decrease in the revenue of the clinic of 39.29% (and 18.90% of decrease in Profit and Loss) after the publication of the Statement by the Defendant. [16] Hence, the Plaintiff submitted that the reasonable damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff would be RM500,000.00. [17] Despite the absence of the Defendant to challenge the evidence of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff still have the burden to prove the damages suffered by him. I could not blatantly accept evidence given by the Plaintiff as this was merely hearsay whereby none of the Plaintiff’s staffs or the patients were called to support the Plaintiff’s evidence that the patients cancelled the appointment was due to the publication of the defamatory statements in the Facebook by the Defendant. Further, the contention of the Plaintiff that the so-called potential patients had decided not to get treatment from the Plaintiff’s clinic due to the Facebook post was rather speculative and hypothetical. [18] In this regard, reference is made to the Court of Appeal in the case of Sambaga Valli A/P Kr Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors. And Other Appeal [2017] 1 LNS 500; [2018] 1 MLJ 784 where it was held that— “…[10] Secondly, it is fundamental and trite that a plaintiff claiming damages must prove his damage. A plaintiff cannot simply make a claim without placing before the Court sufficient evidence of the loss it has suffered even if it is otherwise entitled in principle to recover damages. The law, however, does not demand that the plaintiff prove with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that he has suffered. Thus, the learned author of McGregor on Damages states as follows (at para 8-002): “[W]here it is clear that some substantial loss has been incurred, the fact that an assessment is difficult because of the nature of the damage is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages. As Vaughan William L.J put in in Chaplin v. Hick [[1911] 2 KB 786], the leading case on the issue of certainty: “The fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages.” Indeed, if absolute certainty were required as to the precise amount of loss that the claimant had suffered no damages would be recovered at all in the great number of cases. This is particularly true since so much of damages claimed are in respect of prospective, and therefore necessarily contingent, loss.”. (emphasis added). [11] Thirdly, the assessment of damages in action in this nature does not admit of fixed rules and mathematical precision, but is a matter left to the sound discretion to the judges. The courts refuse to lay down any rules or mathematical formula by which such damages are to be assessed by judges. The fairness and reasonableness of the award cannot be subjected to any recognised test or measure by any certain standard… [Emphasis added] [19] Based on the above authority, although the Plaintiff does not prove with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that they have suffered, the Plaintiff still need to prove what is the loss that he has suffered. [20] I refer to the pages 3 to 4 of the Plaintiff’s Additional Bundle of Documents (Enclosure 22)] which was produced to prove the customers who have cancelled the appointment. It is observed that the date of appointment of the patients was between 08.02.2021 and 02.06.2021. The date of appointment includes the date prior to the publication of the defamatory statement by the Defendant on 16.05.2021. [21] I find there is only one record (see page 5 of Enclosure 22) show the cancellation of appointment on 17.05.2021. Apart from that, there is no other record show cancellation of appointment after 16.05.2021. [22] Further, I find the record shows the clinic received payment cash of RM350.00 on 14.05.2021 (see page 3 of Enclosure 22) and cash of RM370.00 on 23.05.2021 (see page 6 of the Enclosure 22). Therefore, the records of the patients produced by the Plaintiff did not support his evidence the existing patients or potential patients have cancelled the appointment due to the publication of the defamatory statement by the Defendant on 16.05.2021 and the Plaintiff has suffered loss of RM169,240.00. [23] Upon perusing Financial Statement 2021 produced by the Plaintiff (see page 18 of Enclosure 13), I find there was decrease in the revenue of the clinic only in the month of May and June 2021. There was an increase of revenue in the month July and August 2021 then there was a decrease of revenue in the month of September and October 2021. It is observed the revenue in October 2021 show the lowest revenue income of the Plaintiff’s clinic, which was much lower than the month of May and June 2021 when the publication of the Statement by the Defendant. Therefore, I find that the Plaintiff only suffered loss of revenue in May and June 2021 only. [24] Further, I find the statement of account and the profit and loss account were not verified by any accountant or auditor and there is no supporting document produced to support the figure stated therein. [25] The Plaintiff has produced two (2) Income Tax Assessment for year 2020 and 2021 (see pages 1 to 16 of Enclosure 23) which covers the income for the year 2019 and 2020, and not for the year 2021 which the Plaintiff alleged he has suffered loss of revenue. I find these two (2) documents do not support his claim. [26] Further, I refer to the the Thirteenth Schedule of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Service Regulations (Private Hospital and Other Healthcare Facilities) 2006 [P.U(A) 138/2006] (prior to the amendment in 2013) which govern the professional fees for procedures carried out in private hospitals and other healthcare facilities. I observed that the charges allowed under the said Order for tooth coloured/adhesive restoration is range from RM45.00 to RM600.00. However, the charges imposed by the Plaintiff, especially for the filling the tooth is in the range of RM350.00 to RM450.00 seems not according to the Thirteenth Schedule under the said Order. [27] In the present case, although the Defendant did not defence his case, I am of the consider view that the dentists are required to practice ethically and charge reasonable fees based on the complexity of the procedure, location, and their professional qualifications. The standard dental check-up usually ranging from RM30.00 to RM50.00, scaling and polishing between RM120.00 and RM250.00, and a composite filling around RM100.00 to RM200.00 depending on the clinic and dentist. In the presence case, it is not clear what type of treatment has been given to the Defendant’s friend since no evidence tendered from the Defendant. However, based on the Statement made by the Defendant and if it is proven true, it can be adduced that the charges imposed by the Plaintiff is on the high side. General Damages [28] The primary remedy of the common law for the tort of defamation is damages. An award of general damages is for the purpose of compensating the claimant for the effect of the defamatory statement. [29] It is trite that general damages serve three functions. Firstly, it is to act as a consolation to the claimant for the distress he suffers from the publication of the defamatory statement. Secondly, it is to repair the harm to his reputation (including, where relevant, his business reputation). Thirdly, it is a vindication of his reputation (see Gatley on Libel and Slander, 11th Edition, para 9.2, at page 265). [30] In the case of Ling Wah Press (M) Sdn. Bhd. & Ors. v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2000] 4 MLJ 77, the Federal Court applied the trite law concerning the factors which are to be considered by the Court in the assessment of damages where the Federal Court held as follows: “We find that we cannot compare a particular libel case with other libel cases. Each libel case has its own particular and peculiar facts, is unique and a class by itself. We cannot by our judgment set a precedent on the damages to be awarded. The court must consider a number of factors when assessing damages in a libel case. In John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 at p 607, Sir Thomas Bingham MR (now CJ) said: In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it (the defamation) touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. A successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of what was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place. Damages in defamation cases are described as being at large. The law has not fixed any exact measure for assessment of damages in an action for defamation. There is no mathematical formula by which the quantum can be determined; nor is there any requirement that the damages be assessed with mathematical certainty. But a small sum awarded to a prominent public figure for a serious libel could be interpreted as trivialising the incident.”. [Emphasis added] [31] In MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 493, the Court of Appeal affirmed the factors to be considered in assessment of damages as such: “Therefore, bearing in mind the principles applicable in the assessment of damages and in considering all the various factors, including the following: