: A 19-year-old boy diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) has filed a suit against a special education secondary school and three others, including the government, for failing to provide quality special education for him.
The teenager filed the suit through his adopted mother last May 26 and named the school principal and the Education Ministry as the two other defendants.
The media obtained a copy of the suit from the plaintiff's lawyer, Sangeet Kaur, after management of the case before High Court judge Datuk Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad today, who requested the media to not disclose the names of all parties named in the suit.
Sangeet Kaur told reporters that both parties still failed to agree on a settlement and the court set Oct 6 for another case management.
The statement of claim, the teenager, who was diagnosed with ADHD when he was four-years-old and has leg problems, making it difficult for him to sit on the floor, claimed that he was registered at the special-education secondary school on Jan 18, 2016 and was placed at the school hostel.
Prior to that, he was a student at a normal secondary school and his education level was only at kindergarten level.
He claimed that he was placed in a classroom without the school first checking what his learning disabilities were and that the school did not have the facility or system to categorise students based on their disabilities.
The student claimed that he was bullied several times by other students when he was at the school hostel, like being spit at while he was praying, tied to his bed, punched and kicked and his belongings stolen.
He claimed that no action was taken by the school and its principal, despite numerous complaints lodged.
As such, he is seeking, among others, a declaration that the failure to provide a system to categorise special needs students according to their learning disabilities is breach of Article 12 of the Federal Constitution and Section 28 of the Persons With Disabilities Act.
The plaintiff is also seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, cost and other relief which the court deemed fit.
In the defence filed last July 24, the school stated that the placement of the student concerned was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adopted mother during registration.