Scribd
Upload
8 views

PVL3703 - Semester 2 Assignment 1 Unique # 794118

In the case of Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an appeal regarding the negligence of Dr. Abdool Samad Suliman in the delivery of a baby who suffered cerebral palsy. The court found that Dr. Suliman had a legal duty to care for the patient, which he breached by failing to attend the hospital in person and assess the situation, resulting in harm to the child. The court revised the apportionment of damages between the hospital and Dr. Suliman to 40% and 60%, respectively, and ordered the second defendant to cover certain costs incurred by the first defendant.

Uploaded by

Nthabiseng Dinah Maidi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

PVL3703 - Semester 2 Assignment 1 Unique # 794118

In the case of Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an appeal regarding the negligence of Dr. Abdool Samad Suliman in the delivery of a baby who suffered cerebral palsy. The court found that Dr. Suliman had a legal duty to care for the patient, which he breached by failing to attend the hospital in person and assess the situation, resulting in harm to the child. The court revised the apportionment of damages between the hospital and Dr. Suliman to 40% and 60%, respectively, and ordered the second defendant to cover certain costs incurred by the first defendant.

Uploaded by

Nthabiseng Dinah Maidi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MODULE: PVL3701 STUDENT NAME: NTHABISENG DINAH MAIDI

STUDENT NUMBER:30964385

SECOND SEMESTER: ASSIGNMENT 01


CLOSING DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2020
UNIQUE NUMBER: 794118

a. Case Summary - Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman 2019 (2) SA 185 (SCA)

In Life Healthcare Group (Pty) Ltd v Suliman 2019 (2) SA 185 (SCA), the applicant
appealed a judgement passed by the court quo, KwaZulu-Natal Local Division of the High
Court, Durban, in the matter of Life Healthcare Group (PTY) LTD (the “hospital”) v Dr
Abdool Samad Suliman (Dr Suliman), where judge Ploos van Amstel sitting as court of
first instance, dismissing with costs the claim of the appellant against the respondent.

Mr & Mrs S sued both the Hospital, as the first defendant and Dr Abdool Samad Suliman,
a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist, as the second defendant, jointly and
severally, for the damages resulting from the birth injuries sustained by their child. It is
said that the doctor was negligent in discharging his duties, resulting is the birth of a child
who had celebral palsy. The court held that The issue at the centre of this appeal
concerned the question as to whether Dr Suliman had a legal duty to Mrs S, a pregnant
patient, and if so whether his failure to discharge such legal duty was the reason for Mrs
S’s new born baby developing cerebral palsy.
Mrs S initially had another doctor overseeing her pregnancy and scheduled to attend to
the delivery of her baby. Mrs S’s contracted doctor was not available on the day in which
she was in labour and as such, the contracted doctor requested that Dr Suliman ‘cover’
for him by attending to Mrs S. Dr Suliman agreed to this and subsequently responded to
a call from one of the nurses at the hospital informing him that Mrs S was in labour and
had been admitted to the hospital.

Dr Suliman proceeded to give instructions telephonically to the nurse to allow the labour
to proceed and for the patient to be sedated in addition to prescribing certain medication.
Dr Suliman also gave telephonic instructions related to the care of Mrs S once more in a
subsequent telephone call by the hospital nurses. At no time did Dr Suliman visit the
hospital to assess the situation in person. The nurses while speaking to Dr Suliman failed
to read to him the CTG results and because Dr Suliman had not attended to the hospital
MODULE: PVL3701 STUDENT NAME: NTHABISENG DINAH MAIDI
STUDENT NUMBER:30964385

in person, he was unaware that all this time the foetus had been in distress had not
attended to the hospital in person, he was unaware that all this time the foetus had been
in distress.
The high court found that the hospital and Dr Suliman had a legal duty to care for Mrs S.
It also found that both the hospital and Dr Suliman breached such legal duty and were
therefore both negligent. However, the high court was unable to find a factual causal link
between the negligence of Dr Suliman and the resultant injuries to Mrs S and her baby.

In determining a wrongful act, a dual investigation has to be undertaken. Where a legally


recognised individual interest has been infringed, the act must have caused a harmful
result. In this case Dr Suliman’s act were wrongful. If it’s clear that an individual interest
has been prejudiced, legal norms must be used to determine whether such prejudice
occurred in a legally reprehensible / unreasonable manner, violation of a legal norm must,
therefore, be present; a harmful consequence in itself is insufficient to constitute
wrongfulness. In delict, the wrongfulness of an act is, therefore, always determined with
reference to its consequence. If such a consequence is lacking, the act cannot be
wrongful.

The hospital admitted that the nurse acted negligently, however Dr Suliman denied any
wrongdoing on his side.

On an analysis of the facts and the law, the SCA found that Dr Suliman owed a legal duty
to Mrs. S and that such duty arose immediately when Dr Suliman acceded to the request
to ‘cover’ for Mrs. S’s contracted doctor. In coming to this conclusion, the SCA rejected
Dr Suliman’s contention that Mrs. S was not his patient and that he was merely ‘covering’
for Mrs. S’s contracted Doctor.

The SCA further concluded that Dr Suliman had breached his legal duty to care by failing
to act as the reasonable obstetrician would have acted. The SCA held that if Dr Suliman
had attended to Mrs S, he would have detected the distress and would have taken
measures that may reasonably have prevented Mrs S’s baby developing cerebral palsy.
MODULE: PVL3701 STUDENT NAME: NTHABISENG DINAH MAIDI
STUDENT NUMBER:30964385

The Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously upheld an appeal against a judgment. The
appeal was upheld with costs including the cost of two counsel who were employed. The
order of the court a quo (the KwaZulu-Natal Local Division of the High Court) was set
aside and substituted a ruling that the apportionment of damages be revised. Based on
Sec 2 of the Apportionment of Damages Act, the damages between the first defendant
and the second defendant would be 40% and 60% respectively. It was further declared,
in terms of s 2(7) of the Apportionment of Damages Act, the first defendant be entitled to
recover from the second defendant 60% of the R20 million and of the recoverable costs
of the plaintiff paid by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The second defendant was
directed to pay the first defendant’s costs of the third party proceeding, including the costs
consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.

You might also like