Batohi v Roux (12476/2012 ) [2018] ZAKZDHC 56; [2019] 1 All SA 390 (KZD) (16 November 2018)

Batohi v Roux (12476/2012 ) [2018] ZAKZDHC 56; [2019] 1 All SA 390 (KZD) (16 November 2018)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the defendant was negligent in not treating him conservatively before resorting to surgery. Both expert witnesses agreed that, in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the defendant to recommend surgery without further conservative treatment, provided the options were discussed. The evidence established that the plaintiff had undergone conservative treatment prior to consulting the defendant, which was unsuccessful, and that he had little faith in such treatment. The court found that the plaintiff arrived at the defendant's rooms with an expectation of surgery, and his claim that he would have tried medication if...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZDHC 56
Parties
Plaintiff: Callen Raj Batohi; Defendant: Dr Pieter Malan Roux
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Case Number
12476/2012
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Trial on Separated Issues (merits Only; Quantum Stood Over)
Outcome
Judgment is granted in favour of the defendant, with costs, including the qualifying fees of Dr du Plessis and costs incurred as a consequence of the employment of Senior Counsel.
Judges
Vahed
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Causation, Onus of Proof
Delict Medical Negligence Informed Consent Causation Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Callen Raj Batohi

Plaintiff

Dr Pieter Malan Roux

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Trial on Separated Issues (merits Only; Quantum Stood Over)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in not treating the plaintiff conservatively before resorting to surgery.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed in his duty to obtain the plaintiff's informed consent to the surgery.
  3. 3 Whether any such negligence on the defendant's part contributed to, or was a cause of, any damages which the plaintiff may prove he has suffered (causation).

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the defendant was negligent in not treating him conservatively before resorting to surgery. Both expert witnesses agreed that, in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the defendant to recommend surgery without further conservative treatment, provided the options were discussed. The evidence established that the plaintiff had undergone conservative treatment prior to consulting the defendant, which was unsuccessful, and that he had little faith in such treatment. The court found that the plaintiff arrived at the defendant's rooms with an expectation of surgery, and his claim that he would have tried medication if...

Court Disposition

Judgment is granted in favour of the defendant, with costs, including the qualifying fees of Dr du Plessis and costs incurred as a consequence of the employment of Senior Counsel.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs, including the qualifying fees of Dr du Plessis and costs for Senior Counsel.