P v Pretorius (74157/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 602 (14 July 2016)

P v Pretorius (74157/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 602 (14 July 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in recommending or administering IPT for his condition. There was insufficient expert evidence regarding the standard of care among practitioners of IPT, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant's conduct fell below the required standard for a general practitioner. The court held that divergent views exist between conventional and alternative cancer treatments, and the mere choice of an alternative regime does not constitute negligence. The plaintiff's claims based on negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty of care were dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 602
Parties
Plaintiff: J D P; Defendant: Dr Eugene Pretorius
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2016
Case Number
74157/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Duty of Care, Negligent Misrepresentation, Standard of Care
Delict Medical Negligence Duty of Care Negligent Misrepresentation Standard of Care

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J D P

Plaintiff

Dr Eugene Pretorius

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff's cancer using Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT).
  2. 2 Whether the defendant made negligent misrepresentations regarding the suitability and efficacy of IPT for the plaintiff's condition.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the duty of care expected of a reasonable general practitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent in recommending or administering IPT for his condition. There was insufficient expert evidence regarding the standard of care among practitioners of IPT, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant's conduct fell below the required standard for a general practitioner. The court held that divergent views exist between conventional and alternative cancer treatments, and the mere choice of an alternative regime does not constitute negligence. The plaintiff's claims based on negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty of care were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.