We are pleased to share that Azmi & Associates, led by our Litigation Partner, Dayang Roziekah Ussin, alongside our Co-Deputy Managing Partner, Abu Daud Abd Rahim, Managing Associate, Nik Amalia Suraya Nik Muhammad Saifuddin, and Legal Executive, Muhammad Raezal A.Rahim has successfully represented our client in a medical negligence suit involving a botched breast filler procedure at an unlicensed beauty clinic.

On 29 July 2025, Sessions Court Judge, Tuan Saifullah Qamar Bin Qamar Siddique Bhatti delivered a judgment that sent a strong and necessary signal to the aesthetic and wellness industry in Malaysia. The Court awarded RM919,009.60 in total compensation to our client, the Plaintiff, and a further RM25,000.00 in costs, bringing the total sum payable by the Defendants to RM944,009.60.

Background

In 2020, the Plaintiff underwent breast filler injections at an unlicensed beauty clinic operated by an unqualified aesthetic doctor, Dr. S, who also performed the procedure. The treatment was represented to the Plaintiff as involving 100% Hyaluronic Acid (HA) fillers. However, following the injections, the Plaintiff experienced significant pain, swelling, and hardening in her chest area. Her condition worsened over time, ultimately requiring invasive follow up treatments, three corrective surgeries between 2021 and 2024, and other medical procedures to remove the filler and address the complications. After multiple consultations and confirmation from an independent chemical lab test, it was revealed that the substance injected into her body was primarily composed of silicone – not HA as claimed.

Suit at Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court

In April 2023, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur against Dr. S, the practitioner who performed the procedure (“First Defendant”), the business operator and co-owner of the beauty clinic (“Second Defendant”), and the company operating the clinic at the same premises (“Third Defendant”). The claims were grounded in negligence and breach of duty of care, specifically, that the First Defendant performed an aesthetic medical procedure without obtaining the mandatory Letter of Credentialing and Privileging (LCP) and used the wrong filler ingredient, while the Second and Third Defendants were negligent in appointing an unlicensed practitioner, failing to uphold appropriate medical standards, and operating without a valid Ministry of Health licence, as required under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998.

The Sessions Court accepted our arguments and decided that:

• The First Defendant had no business performing the procedure, as she lacked the LCP accreditation required by the Ministry of Health (MOH). Her experience or prior certifications could not substitute legal authorisation. The Court affirmed: “It is not a question of capability, but qualification and authorisation. No amount of capability makes up for a lack of qualification or State-sanctioned authorisation in casu the LCP.” The Court found that the First Defendant’s lack of proper accreditation alone constituted a breach of the standard of care owed to the Plaintiff and is in effect ipso facto negligence.
• The Court held that the consent form was invalid, as the Plaintiff had agreed to a pure HA filler injection, but the product used was primarily composed of silicone. Based on expert testimony (PW2) and the lab test report on the filler substance, the filler could not possibly have been pure HA. Even the First Defendant did not assert that pure HA could contain a high proportion of silicone.
• The Court found that the Second and Third Defendants were equally liable, holding that the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MPBJ) licence was irrelevant. Operating a healthcare or aesthetic facility without MOH accreditation violates the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998. The Court emphasised that the clinic had no authority to host an unlicensed medical business.

Ultimately, the Sessions Court awarded the Plaintiff, a total of RM919,009.60 in compensation, comprising RM800,000 in exemplary damages, RM85,000 in general damages, and RM34,009.60 in special damages for medical expenses and related costs. The Court also awarded RM25,000 in costs to the Plaintiff.

Corporate Communications, Azmi & Associates – 5 August 2025