N.C and Another v P.M.E (A398/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 210 (9 March 2021)

N.C and Another v P.M.E (A398/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 210 (9 March 2021)

The court found that the respondent was not negligent in the provision of ante-natal care. First trimester screening was attempted but could not be performed due to foetal non-cooperation, which is not attributable to the respondent's skill. Second trimester screening was conducted in accordance with accepted medical practice, and the gestational age was assessed reasonably and within accepted error margins. The evidence showed that the appellants were adequately counselled regarding the nature of screening and diagnostic tests, and the results of the second trimester screening were communicated. There was no factual basis to suggest that the respondent failed in his duty of care or that...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 210
Parties
Appellant: N C; Appellant: J B; Respondent: DR P. M. E
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2021
Case Number
A398/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Ranchod, Hughes, Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Wrongful Birth, Medical Negligence, Informed Consent, Antenatal Screening, Termination of Pregnancy Act, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Family and Children Wrongful Birth Medical Negligence Informed Consent Antenatal Screening Termination of Pregnancy Act +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N C

Appellant

J B

Appellant

DR P. M. E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the respondent negligent in the provision of ante-natal care to the first appellant.
  2. 2 Did the respondent fail to properly counsel the first appellant regarding screening and diagnostic tests for Down's Syndrome.
  3. 3 Was the gestational age incorrectly assessed, rendering the second trimester screening test invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not negligent in the provision of ante-natal care. First trimester screening was attempted but could not be performed due to foetal non-cooperation, which is not attributable to the respondent's skill. Second trimester screening was conducted in accordance with accepted medical practice, and the gestational age was assessed reasonably and within accepted error margins. The evidence showed that the appellants were adequately counselled regarding the nature of screening and diagnostic tests, and the results of the second trimester screening were communicated. There was no factual basis to suggest that the respondent failed in his duty of care or that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.