skip to content »

Free sex chat sites no regisztracio

Free sex chat sites no regisztracio-13

At the trial, the plaintiff called one Dato’ Dr Arumugasamy to testify on her behalf.He gave his expert evidence after examining the plaintiff and causing X-rays to be taken on her.

Free sex chat sites no regisztracio-70Free sex chat sites no regisztracio-59Free sex chat sites no regisztracio-69Free sex chat sites no regisztracio-62

The second defendant however stated in evidence that the wire was not in the spinal cord and this was shown by an X-ray he had taken.At the time of her admission, the plaintiff was able to move all her limbs.The second defendant, a visiting consultant with the first defendant examined the plaintiff on the afternoon of 12 July 1982 during which time he informed her that she had dislocated two neck bones.Since such an assurance was given, she consented to the operation.She further stated that had she known that the first operation was a major surgery with high risks, she would not have consented.A second consent form dated 5 August 1982 affixed with the plaintiff’s thumbprint was also tendered as evidence.

In its defence, the first defendant denied that the second defendant was its servant or agent and as such it was not responsible for the negligent act of the second defendant.

The X-ray however was never produced in court despite requests being made by the plaintiff for it to be produced in court and no satisfactory explanation was given for its non-production.

The second defendant maintained that at no time was the wire compressing the spinal cord.

The plaintiff was then taken to the operating theatre where another operation (‘the second operation’) was performed.

After the second operation, the plaintiff was only able to move her hands.

The second defendant assured her that the paralysis was only temporary and that she would recover in two weeks.