19-year-old youth who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision procedure, today received RM150,000

Teen in botched circumcision case gets RM150,000 in out-of-court deal


Published 1 hour ago on 23 July 2019
The teenager’s counsel, Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar, said the medical assistant attached to the Kuala Lipis hospital, who was the first defendant in the suit heard in the High Court, agreed to compensate a sum of RM150,000 to his client. — Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 — A 19-year-old youth who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision procedure when he was aged 10, today received RM150,000 in an out-of-court settlement with a government medical assistant, one of the six defendants he has sued.

The teenager’s counsel, Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar, said the medical assistant attached to the Kuala Lipis hospital, who was the first defendant in the suit heard in the High Court, agreed to compensate a sum of RM150,000 to his client.



“This sum was proposed by the court during discussions for a settlement and we have agreed to it,” he told reporters after case proceedings in the chambers of judge Datuk Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad, who then recorded the out of court settlement decision.”

Mohamad Zainuddin said the defendant had also asked for the compensation amount to be paid in RM 2,500 monthly instalments for a period of five years, but this request was rejected.


“The Court then fixed August 5 to decide on the terms of payment,” he said.


In a separate development, Mohamad Zainuddin said case management of his client’s notice of appeal against the court’s decision on February 20 allowing an application by the government and four others who were previously the defendants in the suit to strike out the suit has been fixed on August 6 at the Court of Appeal.

The four others — the second to fifth defendants — were the medical officer, a director at Kuala Lipis Hospital, a specialist and a director at the Selayang Hospital. The government was the sixth defendant.

The man filed the suit on July 19 last year through his mother, claiming that on December 13, 2010, at 10am, 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, and 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 performed to stitch back the severed part, but on the 35th day, she was shocked to find out that her son’s penis was without its glans.

She claimed that the fourth defendant (a specialist at Selayang Hospital) had assured her that her son’s penis glans would grow as he got older, but at the age of 17, it did not.

As a result of that, she claimed that her son had suffered permanent disability and become a quiet person and only makes friends with small 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