MD Nazmul v 1. ) Gp Unimedic J Sdn Bhd (WA-24NCvC-242-01/2025)

(2)(G) AKTA KEMUDAHAN DAN PERKHIDMATAN JAGAAN KESIHATAN SWASTA 1998 PERATURAN 44 (2) PERATURAN PERATURAN KEMUDAHAN DAN PERKHIDMATAN JAGAAN KESIHATAN SWASTA (HOSPITAL SWASTA LAIN-LAIN KEMUDAHAN JAGAAN KESIHATAN SWASTA) 2006 GARIS PANDUAN MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA; DALAM PERKARA ATURAN 24 KAEDAH 7A KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH 2012, SEKSYEN 25(2) DAN PERKARA 14 JADUAL KEPADA AKTA MAHKAMAH KEHAKIMAN 1964; DALAM PERKARA MD NAZMUL; ANTARA 03/06/2025 16:33:12 WA-24NCvC-242-01/2025 Kand. 14 MD NAZMUL ...PLAINTIF

GP UNIMEDIC J SDN BHD

UNIVERSITI MALAYA … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

The Plaintiff applied by way of this Originating Summons (OS) to obtain his medical records from the 2 Defendants.

The provision of law relied by the Plaintiff amongst others is Regulation 44 of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services (Private Hospitals and other Private healthcare Facilities Regulation 2006 (“health care Regulation”) which stipulates:

A patient's medical record is the property of a private healthcare facility or service.

No patient's medical record shall be taken out from the private healthcare facility or service except under a court order and when taken out from the private healthcare facility or service under a court order, a copy of the records shall be retained by the private healthcare facility or service and the original records shall be returned to the private healthcare facility or service at the end of the proceedings for which the records were directed to be procured.

The licensee or person in charge of the private healthcare facility or service shall ensure that for each admission, each patient's medical record shall have the information as specified in the Sixth Schedule.

All entries in a patient's medical record shall be-

dated and authenticated by the person who gave the order, provided the care or performed the observation, examination, assessment, treatment or other service to which the entry pertains; and

legibly written in ink, typewritten or recorded on a computer terminal which is designed to receive such information and if recorded and stored in a computer, it may be stored on magnetic tapes, discs or other devices suited to the storage of data.

All originals or copies of any patient's medical reports received from any other healthcare facility or service shall be filed in the patient's medical record in the private healthcare facility or service.

Any person who contravenes subregulation (3), (4) or (5) commits an offence.

The Plaintiff also relies on Order 24 Rule &A which allows discovery of documents before commencement of proceedings and stipulates as follows:

Discovery against other person (O. 24 r. 7A)

An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons and the person against whom the order is sought shall be made defendant to the originating summons. Brief facts

The Plaintiff was treated on a number of occasions by a Dr Ganeshan in Klinik Amardev & Surgery. However instead of alleviating his pain and suffering, the treatment in the above said clinic, caused him more pain and immobility prompting the Plaintiff to be brought for treatment at the Wad Orthopaedic Pusat Perubatan University Malaya (“PPUM”).

After treatment from PPUM the Plaintiff continued to have difficulty in walking requiring further treatment. The Plaintiff intending to commence proceedings against the Defendants has filed this OS to get his medical records which he contends are in the possession of the Defendants. Although a written request has been made to obtain the records the Plaintiff has failed to obtain the records from the Defendants. Entitlement to medical records

It is clear that the Plaintiff is entitled to his medical records under the law but the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant are in possession of his medical records. The 1st Defendant named here is GP Unimedic J Sdn Bhd. There is no evidence led by the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant has any relationship with Klinik Amardev where he was treated.

Similarly, the 2nd Defendant is University Malaya which is separate entity from Pusat Perubatan University Malaya where the Plaintiff was treated.

There is absolutely no evidence led by the Plaintiff to show that the Defendants have in their possession his medical record. The Court rules that both the Defendants are not the correct entitles against whom the OS should be directed to

For the above reasons the Court dismisses the OS with a cost of RM3,000. Dated: 3.6.2025 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Ashrul Haikal Tetuan Kiranjit Randhawa & Co, Suite 718, 7th Floor Menara Mutiara Majestic, No.15, Jalan Othman, Seksyen 3, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Sivaperumal A/L Sakitazan Tetuan G. Ram, Rozzeta & Associates No. 31-2, Jalan PPH 1/2, Pusat Perdagangan Harmoni, 43950, Sungai Pelek, Selangor. Nama Peguamcara: Aryssa Aryanna Tetuan Jayadeep Hari & Jamil No. Suite 2.03, Blok A, No. 45, Jalan Medan Setia Satu, Plaza Damansara, Bukit Damansara, 50490 Kuala Lumpur.