Justice Johan Lee said the plaintiffs had failed to show they had a valid and enforceable contract against Swissmed Sdn Bhd, the defendant named in the suit.
Swissmed was the agent of Dutch-based manufacturer Oculentis BV, originally named as the second defendant.
Earlier this year, the judge struck out Oculentis as a defendant in the suit, after the firm, which has faced multiple suits relating to its faulty lenses over the last seven years, was found to have been bankrupt.
Plaintiffs Maggie Leong and P Palaniammal, however, maintained their respective suits against Swissmed, seeking compensation after their vision deteriorated following the insertion of lenses which the manufacturer later admitted were faulty.
The court decided to hear both suits together, as the facts and subject matter were identical.
In broad grounds of judgment released last week, Johan dismissed the plaintiffs’ three causes of action based on contract, the Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA), and the law of negligence.
He said Leong and Palaniammal could not bring a case for breach of contract as neither of them had a contract with Swissmed to begin with.
Johan said the lack of a contract also means the plaintiffs cannot bring an action founded on the CPA.
“Under the CPA, the first thing a claimant must establish is a contractual relationship between the parties. Only then can the consumer come forward and claim the protections under the CPA,” the judgment read.
The claim founded in negligence also failed as the plaintiffs had failed to identify what duty the supplier of the lenses owed to the plaintiffs, said Johan.
Johan ordered Leong and Palaniammal to each pay Swissmed RM50,000 in costs.
The plaintiffs had claimed that the defendant had supplied advanced Mplus X intraocular lenses with implied guarantees that the lenses were of acceptable quality, fit for purpose, and reasonably safe for use.
The plaintiffs said as a result of the failure of the lenses, they now suffer from permanent eyesight problems including visual haze, blurry vision, loss of vision acuity, poor night vision and tiredness when reading.
They had sought damages, including aggravated, exemplary and special damages, and costs.
It is understood that the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.