Sessions court judge Saifullah Bhatti ruled that the plaintiff had proven her case on the balance of probabilities against Dr Suffia Hany Amin, Shaiful Haimey Abdullah – the sole proprietor of Francsuffia Aesthetic Centre – and Francsuffia Prestige Sdn Bhd.

Saifullah also awarded the woman costs of RM25,000.

A substantial portion of the award – RM800,000 – was awarded as exemplary damages, with the remainder awarded as general damages.

In a 64-page judgment delivered today, Saifullah said the central aim of exemplary damages is deterrence – sending a clear signal to others by making an example of the defendant.

“Exemplary damages in civil litigation are intended both to alert the public to the seriousness of the issue adjudicated and to dissuade potential tortfeasors from committing similar wrongful acts,” the judgment read.

The judge acknowledged that a person ought to ask themselves some basic questions when seeking treatment, such as whether the person treating them is, in the first place, a doctor.

“(However,) it is harder to expect the public to know that the doctor must also, in cases like this, specifically possess a ‘letter of credentialing and privileging’ for the aesthetic procedures which he/she intends to perform,” he said.

Saifullah said the plaintiff, who described herself as having a “personality and lifestyle that prioritises and cares about beauty” learned her lesson the hard way.

On Oct 26, 2020, the plaintiff responded to an advertisement posted by one of the defendants’ representatives on WhatsApp regarding an aesthetic breast filler procedure.

As soon as the procedure was done, she felt pain and discomfort in both her breasts, which had become inflamed.

Suffia then performed a drainage procedure and injected platelet-rich plasma to speed up the healing of the scars that had formed as a result of the drainage procedure.

The woman later sought treatment and underwent corrective surgery at a different private hospital.

In her statement of claim, the plaintiff said Suffia was negligent for carrying out an aesthetic medical procedure without proper accreditation or licensing.

She said that Suffia failed to comply with the accepted standard of care, injecting the wrong filler into her breasts.

Her case against Shaiful and Francsuffia Prestige was premised on the allegations of their negligence in appointing Suffia, an unaccredited and unlicensed medical practitioner to perform the procedure.

“Under the trite law of partnerships, he is as liable as Suffia,” he said.

The plaintiff said they also failed to meet the appropriate standard of care that was expected of them as a medical facility.

Saifullah rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff was obligated to call expert witnesses to substantiate her claim, saying it was without merit.

“The plaintiff’s case is that the first defendant (Suffia) was unaccredited and therefore unlicensed to perform the procedure.

“Secondly, Suffia administered the wrong filler against her representations that she would use 100% HA filler injections. With respect, none of these facts turn on expert evidence,” he said.

Saifullah said the plaintiff had produced multiple medical reports that contain expert evidence on the injuries she suffered and the further procedures/surgeries that she had to undergo to rectify the harm caused to her by the procedure.

The judge noted that the defendants did not challenge any of the reports at trial.

“It was more than open to them to call their experts to challenge any of the opinions or factual findings of any of the doctors who had made their reports on the plaintiff’s injuries and condition,” he said, adding that the defendants elected not to do so.

Saifullah said he concluded that Suffia was not accredited or licensed as per the ministry of health guidelines.

The judge found Suffia liable for breaching the standard of care owed to the plaintiff, having performed the procedure without the requisite accreditation.

“This, as ruled by previous judicial decisions, is in effect ipso facto negligence,” he said.

The judge noted that Suffia had admitted to being a business partner although not a doctor.

He said Francsuffia, as a healthcare facility, had not shown any accreditation or licensing under the terms of the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998.

“It must follow then that Francsuffia is not qualified to undertake or play host to what was essentially an unlicensed and therefore illegal business,” he said.

Dayang Roziekah Ussin, Abu Daud Abd Rahim and Nik Amalia Suraya Nik Muhammad appeared for the woman while Fakhrul Azman Abu Hasan acted for the defendants.