C.S.R and Another v Dhavaraj (16850/2014) [2019] ZAKZPHC 11 (11 March 2019)

C.S.R and Another v Dhavaraj (16850/2014) [2019] ZAKZPHC 11 (11 March 2019)

The court found that while the possibility of a TL was discussed and offered by the defendant, there was no proof that the plaintiffs communicated acceptance by providing the required written consent to the defendant. The hospital records and contemporaneous clinical notes supported the defendant's version that no TL was performed and that the first plaintiff was advised to return in six weeks if she wished to proceed. The billing for the TL was explained as an administrative error and reversed. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a binding contract existed for the TL procedure on 15 February 2011. The probabilities favoured the...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 11
Parties
Plaintiff: C S R; Plaintiff: W R; Defendant: DR K C Dhavaraj
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2019
Case Number
16850/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability and Prescription Tried First; Quantum Stood Over
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Koen
Legal Topics
Contractual Damages, Sterilisation Act, Consent in Medical Procedures, Onus of Proof, Administrative Error in Billing
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Damages Sterilisation Act Consent in Medical Procedures Onus of Proof Administrative Error in Billing

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C S R

Plaintiff

W R

Plaintiff

DR K C Dhavaraj

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability and Prescription Tried First; Quantum Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid and binding contract existed obliging the defendant to perform a tubal ligation (TL) on the first plaintiff on 15 February 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs communicated acceptance of the TL procedure to the defendant such that consensus ad idem was reached.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's billing for the TL procedure constituted an admission of contractual obligation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the possibility of a TL was discussed and offered by the defendant, there was no proof that the plaintiffs communicated acceptance by providing the required written consent to the defendant. The hospital records and contemporaneous clinical notes supported the defendant's version that no TL was performed and that the first plaintiff was advised to return in six weeks if she wished to proceed. The billing for the TL was explained as an administrative error and reversed. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a binding contract existed for the TL procedure on 15 February 2011. The probabilities favoured the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.
  • Each party is directed to pay their own costs.