https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/02/25/some-private-hospitals-face-removal-from-insurance-panels-says-group/

The Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia says its members are unable to fulfil insurers’ requests for ‘exorbitant’ discounts on patients’ bills.

PETALING JAYA: 

Several private hospitals may face removal from insurance panels soon due to their inability to meet requests by insurers for “exorbitant” discounts on patients’ bills, says the Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia (APHM).

The association said while its member hospitals had consistently provided “reasonable discounts to insurers, exorbitant discounts are not sustainable and will compromise the quality of care our patients expect to receive”.

“As private hospitals, our primary mission is to provide the best care for our patients.

“We strive to minimise delays that could affect patient outcomes while offering cutting-edge medical technology, expertise and services at a global standard.

“To maintain this level of care, APHM member hospitals reinvest profits annually into the latest technology and infrastructure, which we believe is vital to enhance patient treatment through less invasive procedures and improve survival rates,” said the association in a statement.

APHM president Kuljit Singh said even though the association’s member hospitals had been on the insurance panels for some time now, the discounts requested by insurers had increased greatly in the last 12 months or so.

“We always try our best to help the insurance companies.

“But the patient is our priority at the end of the day. We cannot cut corners to the point it becomes dangerous to the patient,” he said.

APHM said while patients could still seek treatment from delisted APHM member hospitals, they would have to pay their medical bills first and claim from their insurance provider later, as delisted hospitals would not get guarantee letters from insurers.

The association said it was currently engaged in discussions with the health ministry, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Public Accounts Committee to explore solutions to medical inflation.

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2022/06/03/mahkamah-tolak-saman-rm1-juta-dituntut-remaja-hilang-kaki/

 PETALING JAYA: Mahkamah Sesyen Pasir Mas, Kelantan menolak tuntutan saman sebanyak RM1 juta yang dibuat seorang remaja terhadap syarikat insurans selepas mendakwa motosikalnya terlibat dalam kemalangan dengan motosikal lain.

Azmie Azzem Bahari, yang kehilangan kaki kanan dalam “kemalangan palsu” tersebut menuntut sejumlah itu daripada RHB Insurance Bhd atas sebab kecuaian dan kehilangan sumber pendapatan namun mahkamah memutuskan tuntutannya “dicemari dengan penipuan”.

Hakim Badrul Munir Mohd Hamdy berkata, keputusan itu dibuat selepas mendengar keterangan daripada saksi, serta keterangan dan hujahan bertulis.

Katanya, kecuaian boleh berlaku jika hanya melibatkan kemalangan dengan motosikal lain.

Bagaimanapun, peguam J S Naicker yang mewakili RHB Insurance Bhd, berhujah bahawa kenderaan yang dinaiki pemuda itu hanya melanggar tiang lampu.

Hakim berkata, terdapat unsur penipuan berdasarkan laporan polis, laporan perubatan, bukti di lokasi kemalangan, saksi yang boleh dipercayai, serta kelakuan plaintif.

“Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa plaintif gagal membuktikan keraguan munasabah terhadap defendan,” katanya dengan menambah bahawa RHB Insurance Bhd berjaya membuktikan wujudnya penipuan dalam laporan kemalangan itu.

“Plaintif bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya atas kemalangan itu,” kata Badrul.

Kejadian berlaku di hadapan Hospital Kelaboran di Tumpat, Kelantan kira-kira jam 4.15 petang pada 3 April 2016.

Pada 29 Ogos 2019, Azmie juga memfailkan tuntutan kecuaian dan kehilangan pendapatan terhadap seorang lagi penunggang motosikal Shafiq Rashid.

Dalam tuntutan itu, dia turut menyenaraikan kakak Shafiq, Suhaila yang juga pemilik motosikal dan syarikat insurans RHB Insurance Bhd sebagai defendan.

Prosedur mahkamah pada kebiasaannya akan membuat penilaian ganti rugi sebanyak RM450,000 jika saman itu tulen.

Plaintif dan syarikat insurans memanggil 20 saksi sepanjang perbicaraan itu.

Couple sues car dealer, bank over purchase of stolen vehicle

 https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/09/21/couple-sues-car-dealer-bank-over-purchase-of-stolen-vehicle/

Sabah, Sarawak judges 'need not sit' in cases related to the two states

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/404900

In a judgment that may raise the eyebrows of the Sabah and Sarawak people, the Federal Court ruled yesterday that judges hearing cases from Sabah and Sarawak need not be from the two states.

A five-member bench of the court ruled that Paragraph 26 (4) of the Inter-governmental Committee Report 1962 (IGC) that cites “a judge with Borneo judicial experience” referred to judicial officers from the subordinate courts, High Court, the Court of Appeal and Federal Court when these courts sit in Sabah and Sarawak.

With this decision, it is not necessary that the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, in this case Justice Richard Malanjum, should sit in any case in the Federal Court that originates from the two states that joined Malaysia in 1963, as long as the judge or judges on the panel sit either in Kuching or Kota Kinabalu.

This decision, seen as controversial, was made by a panel led by the number two in the judiciary, Court of Appeal president Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, which dismissed a review application by Keruntum Sdn Bhd.

In this matter, Keruntum was challenging an apex court decision made last March that dismissed its claims of RM130 million in damages from the Sarawak government.

This was for the wrongful revocation of the company's timber licence by the state. This Keruntum case is one of the longest standing cases, which is close to 30 years.

image: https://i.malaysiakini.com/1157/ba322b2fe35a176af6c9d6b0f7b89641.jpeg

Keruntum’s defence, led by former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram (photo), argued that the decision made by the earlier panel, in March 2017, had coram failure as none of the five judges who sat on the bench had “Borneo judicial experience” as stipulated under the IGC, which therefore rendered their judgment null and void.

Gopal argued that since the Federal Court bench was enlarged to five, at least two judges seating in the apex court in the case should have Borneo judicial experience.

However, Sarawak's state counsel JC Foong argued that the IGC proposals are not given effect in the Malaysia Agreement, by Parliament or by the executive.

Newspaper Borneo Post reported that the Justice Zulkefli, along with Federal Court judges Justices Azhar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi and Prasad Sandosham Abraham, ruled there was no coram failure.

This follows the number of judges who heard the original appeal was not less than the statutory minimum under Section 72 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

'A need to understand what IGC meant'

On the issue of Keruntum's claim that its constitutional rights were breached because the panel does not have judges with “Borneo judicial experience” as recommended in paragraph 26 (4) of the IGC, the bench led by Justice Zulkefli ruled there was a need to understand what IGC meant by the term ‘Bornean judicial experience’.

As the IGC report does not define or explain the said term, the Federal Court interpreted that it followed the rules for the interpretation of a constitutional document.

Hence, the bench interpreted the term ‘Bornean judicial experience’ to mean a judge having served in a subordinate court, High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the Court of Appeal and Federal Court when sitting in these two states.

“This term cannot be construed to mean a judge born or is a resident in the two Borneo states, as the IGC’s emphasis is clearly on ‘judicial experience’ and not on the ‘origin, birth or residence of the judge’,” it ruled.

To make matters worse, the apex court also ruled yesterday that the recommendation under paragraph 26(4) of IGC Report was never implemented under Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement through incorporation in the Federal Constitution or in any law, such as the Court of Judicature Act 1964 passed after Malaysia Day, or by executive orders made pursuant to Article 74 of the Malaysia Act, 1963.

Hence, the courts have no power under Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement to implement paragraph 26(4) of the IGC Report, the Borneo Post reported.

This led to Keruntum's application for the review to be set aside and it was ordered to pay RM10,000 in costs.

Yesterday's decision also meant that the reliance of Sabah and Sarawak on the IGC cannot be depended upon as it was never implemented as part of the Malaysia Agreement by being incorporated in the Federal Constitution.