Court advises parties to resolve botched circumcision suit out of court

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here yesterday advised parties in a law suit filed by 19year-old over a circumcision that went awry when he was 10-yearsold to resolve the matter out of court.

Lawyer Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar, representing the man, said judge Datuk Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad, sitting in chambers, advised the parties involved to discuss and try to resolve the matter, which was fixed for case management yesterday.

He said the court also set April 3 for further case management to know the development of the discussion.

Mohamad Zainuddin said his client had also filed a notice of appeal on the court's decision in allowing applications by the government and four others to strike out the suit.

"The appeal notice was filed last March 6...however, the date for case management has yet to be fixed by the Court of Appeal,” he added.

Last Feb 20, the High Court allowed the applications by the government, Kuala Lipis Hospital's medical officer and its director and Selayang Hospital's specialist and its director, to strike out the suit on grounds that the circumcision was performed outside the hospital and the government was not responsible for it.

A medical assistant at Kuala Lipis Hospital, who was named the first defendant in the suit, had also applied to strike out the suit, but withdrew it later.

The man filed the suit on July 19 last year through his mother, claiming that on Dec 13, 2010, at 10 am, the first defendant (medical assistant) had carried out the circumcision procedures on two boys, including her son, at a residence in Kuala Lipis, Pahang, with the knowledge and permission of the second and third defendant (KLH medical officer and director, respectively).

She claimed that during the circumcision, the first defendant did not follow the stipulated procedures and cut off her son's penis' entire head.

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 while her son was at KLH, the second defendant did not provide immediate treatment to the boy, as well as failing to inform her and other family members that her entire head of her son's penis was severed.

She alleged that she was only informed that the cut affected her son's urinary tract.

The second defendant, she claimed, 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. – Bernama