Hi, How Can We Help You?

Welcome to

We give opinions to and undertake counsel’s work for other law firms. We undertake teaching for various professional bodies and write for publication on matters relating to our areas of practice. We provide services to institutions of higher learning, including by way of teaching and as external examiners.
View Gallery
  • Entrance
  • Our Office
  • PS Ranjan & Co

Our Partners

P S Ranjan

LL.B (Hons.) (Malaya), M.A. (Manchester)

Manmohan S Dhillon

LL.B (Hons.) Wolverhampton

Make Appointment


16 Oct / 20


The Montgomery test for the adequacy or otherwise of disclosure for the purpose of valid patient consent ordains that the doctor’s duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risk of proposed treatment and of any variant or alternative treatment (whether in respect of outcome or of potentially intervening complication). Breach of or compliance with this duty is a legal test applied by the court, and decided, where disputed, on the basis of the evidence which the judge accepts and prefers.

Read More
16 Oct / 20


The number of professional negligence claims against health care practitioners has increased a great deal of late in countries such as the United States and Britain. Even in Malaysia, there has been a noticeable increase in such claims recently. This increase is not entirely due to there being more health care practitioners in practice now than before. People are, at present, more litigation-conscious and more aware of their rights. And people are more prepared to challenge their professional advisers nowadays than they were before. This holds true not just for the medical profession but for every profession. Furthermore, developments by way of decided cases and legislation have led to higher quantum.

Read More
14 Sep / 20

The Judgment of the Federal Court in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun and Assunta Hospital [2007] 1 MLJ 593

The Federal Court in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun and Assunta Hospital [2007] 1 MLJ 593 reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. When doing so, it set out what it said were “facts … not disputed”. The true position is that the appeal was allowed on the basis of facts which were actually in dispute or in respect of which there was no evidence. Furthermore, the plaintiff had departed from her pleaded case that she had suffered spinal cord injuries in a motor vehicle accident after which she suffered paralysis. At trial, she alleged that her paralysis was caused by compression of the spinal cord by a surgical wire inserted by Dr Soo Fook Mun. That allegation was not pleaded. Even her own expert who was a consultant neurosurgeon did not support her allegation. Neither did other witnesses, medical or expert.

Read More