Woman loses R6m childbirth negligence claim after court rules it was too late

A woman who sought R6 million in damages over serious complications following childbirth has lost her case after the North West High Court found that she had waited too long to institute legal action.

Acting Judge B.F. Mnyovu upheld a special plea of prescription raised by Dr Sam Amaoukua Adu, ruling that the woman’s claim had expired under South Africa’s three-year prescription period.

The court dismissed the claim with costs. However, the ruling did not determine whether the doctor had been negligent in treating her. The case turned on when the woman knew, or reasonably could have known, the essential facts behind her claim.

Woman experienced complications after giving birth

The woman gave birth on 11 December 2019. According to the court judgment, the delivery involved vacuum extraction and an episiotomy.

She later developed a serious condition that caused gas and faecal matter to pass through her vagina. She alleged that the complications resulted from negligence and a breach of the doctor’s duty of care.

Her claim sought R6 million for medical treatment and multiple surgical procedures, the impact on her quality of life, emotional and psychological harm, and the cost of anticipated future treatment.

Dr Adu, who said he had provided her with antenatal care since 2017, testified that he examined her after the birth and advised her to return for a six-week check-up.

He said she attended in January 2020 and no complications were apparent at that stage. According to his evidence, symptoms began emerging the following month and worsened in March.

He later diagnosed a rectovaginal fistula, a connection between the rectum and vagina that can allow gas or stool to pass through the vagina. Surgery was subsequently performed on 4 February 2021.

The woman disputed parts of his account, saying she had consulted him in November 2020 and was referred for surgery after being diagnosed with an infection.

She continued experiencing problems after the operation and later consulted another doctor before seeking further medical advice.

Woman argued she only discovered negligence in 2021

The central legal question was when the three-year prescription period began.

The woman argued that she only acquired the necessary knowledge to pursue a negligence claim after receiving a report from Dr Burgin on 28 June 2021.

Her position was that, although she suspected something had gone wrong, she did not know that the doctor had been negligent until the expert assessment helped explain the cause of her condition.

Dr Adu’s legal team argued that she already knew the essential facts by 4 February 2021, when she underwent surgery for the condition.

They maintained that prescription does not wait until a person obtains an expert opinion or understands the legal significance of the facts.

What the law says about prescription

The court considered section 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. It provides that prescription generally begins when a person knows the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises.

A person may also be treated as having that knowledge if they could have obtained it through reasonable care.

Judge Mnyovu distinguished between knowing the underlying facts and knowing that those facts amount to negligence in law.

In other words, a claimant does not necessarily need a completed expert report or a definitive legal opinion before the prescription period can start running.

The court also considered the importance of investigating reasonable suspicions of wrongdoing. Where the circumstances suggest that something may have gone wrong, a person may be expected to make further enquiries or seek expert advice.

Court finds the claim had expired

The judge found that the woman knew Dr Adu’s identity and the primary facts underlying her claim by 4 February 2021.

By that point, she had experienced the condition, sought medical treatment and undergone surgery. She had also taken steps towards investigating the cause of her medical problems.

The judgment noted that she appointed attorneys on 27 February 2021 to investigate the matter and gave them a mandate to institute legal action.

The court concluded that the later report from Dr Burgin did not postpone the start of prescription because the woman already had sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts.

It therefore found that the three-year period had expired on 3 February 2024.

Judge Mnyovu upheld Dr Adu’s special plea of prescription and dismissed the woman’s R6 million claim with costs.

The decision highlights the importance of seeking legal advice promptly in medical negligence cases, as waiting for an expert report may not necessarily extend the time available to bring a claim.

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com

Source: IOL