Defendants seek to strike out botched circumcision suit

The man, who claimed to be permanently incapacitated due to the incident, filed the suit through his mother, who is named the plaintiff, on July 19 this year. — AFP pic
The man, who claimed to be permanently incapacitated due to the incident, filed the suit through his mother, who is named the plaintiff, on July 19 this year. — AFP pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 7 — The government and four others who were named defendants in a negligence suit filed by a man over a circumcision that went awry when he was 10-years-old have applied to strike out the suit.

Besides the government, the other defendants are Kuala Lipis Hospital medical officer and its director, as well as a specialist doctor and director of Selayang Hospital,. They were named the second to sixth defendant in the suit.

A medical assistant at Kuala Lipis Hospital, who was named the first defendant, had filed an application to strike out the suit, but later withdrew the application.

Lawyer Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar, who represented the man, now 18, said the five defendants had filed their application to strike out the suit last Nov 16 on grounds that his client had no cause of action to file the suit, and also claimed that the suit was trivial, humiliating and of inconvenience.

“The court set January 3 next year for further case management,” he told reporter after the matter came up for case management  in the chambers of High Court deputy registrar Rumaizah Baharom.

In their application, the five defendants also claimed that they had no knowledge and were not involved in the circumcision process that was conducted by the first defendant.

They also claimed that the circumcision process was carried out by the first defendant at a private premises and outside his official duty.

The man, who claimed to be permanently incapacitated due to the incident, filed the suit through his mother, who is named the plaintiff, on July 19 this year.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiff stated that on December 13, 2010, at 10am, the first defendant (medical assistant) and an assistant  had conducted circumcision procedures on two boys, including his son,  at a residence in Kuala Lipis, Pahang, with the knowledge and permission of the second and third defendant (Kuala Lipis medical officer and director, respectively).

She claimed that during the circumcision, the first defendant did not follow the stipulated procedure and cut her son’s entire penis head, with the foreskin still intact.

The woman claimed that because of the negligence, the head of her son’s penis was severed, adding that the medical assistant attempted to stitch back the severed part, but claimed it was not performed according to procedures.

She also claimed that when her son was at the Kuala Lipis Hospital, the second defendant did not provide immediate treatment to the boy, as well as did not inform her and other family members that her son’s glans of the penis was severed.

The woman claimed she was informed that the cut only affected her son’s urinary tract.

She claimed that the second defendant was negligent for not stitching back the severed part of her son’s penis and also took too long to decide to send her child for immediate treatment at the Selayang Hospital.

The plaintiff said her son was sent to Selayang Hospital where a surgery was done to stitch back the severed part, but on the 35th day, was shocked to find out that her son’s penis had no head.

She claimed that the fourth defendant (specialist doctor at Selayang Hospital) had assured her that her son’s penis glans would grow as he got older, but at the age of 17, her son remained incapacitated.

As a result of that, she claimed that her son had changed and become a quiet person, do not want to befriend persons of his own age group, but prefer to mix with younger children.

She claimed to have forked out a huge sum for her son’s treatment at Selayang Hospital, including transportation and for legal consultation, amounting to more than RM100,000.

She is seeking general and special damages, as well as interest and other costs which the court deems fit. — Bernama

Related Articles