THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY - JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

Life Healthcare Group (PTY) LTD v DR Abdool Samad Suliman (529/17) [2018] ZASCA 118 (20
September 2018)

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Date:
20 September 2018

Status:
Immediate Release

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Today, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) unanimously upheld an appeal against a judgment of the
KwaZulu-Natal Local Division of the High Court, Durban (the high court), in the matter of Life
Healthcare Group (PTY) LTD (the hospital) v Dr Abdool Samad Suliman (Dr Suliman).
The issue at the centre of this appeal concerned the question as to whether Dr Suliman had a legal
duty to Mrs Sibaya, a pregnant patient, and if so whether his failure to discharge such legal duty was
the reason for Mrs Sibaya’s new born baby developing cerebral palsy.
Mrs Sibaya initially had another doctor overseeing her pregnancy and scheduled to attend to the
delivery of her baby. Mrs Sibaya’s contracted doctor was not available on the day in which she was in
labour and as such, the contracted doctor requested that Dr Suliman ‘cover’ for him by attending to
Mrs Sibaya.  Dr Suliman agreed to this and subsequently responded to a call from one of the nurses
at the hospital informing him that Mrs Sibaya was in labour and had been admitted to the hospital.
Dr Suliman proceeded to give instructions telephonically to the nurse to allow the labour to proceed
and for the patient to be sedated in addition to prescribing certain medication. Dr Suliman also gave
telephonic instructions related to the care of Mrs Sibaya once more in a subsequent telephone call by
the hospital nurses.  At no time did Dr Suliman visit the hospital to assess the situation in person. The
nurses while speaking to Dr Suliman failed to read to him the CTG results and because Dr Suliman
had not attended to the hospital in person, he was unaware that all this time the foetus had been in
distress. When Dr Suliman finally attended to the hospital, several hours later, a series of logistical
glitches led to Dr Suliman having to perform a episiotomy and Mrs Sibaya’s baby ended up

developing cerebral palsy - an outcome that on the evidence led could have been prevented had the
distress of the foetus been detected by both the hospital nurses and by Dr Suliman at an earlier
stage.
The high court found that the hospital and Dr Suliman had a legal duty to care for Mrs Sibaya. The
high court also found that both the hospital and Dr Suliman breached such legal duty and were
therefore both negligent. However, the high court was unable to find a factual causal link between the
negligence of Dr Suliman and the resultant injuries to Mrs Sibaya and her baby – hence the appeal to
this court by the hospital.
On an analysis of the facts and the law, the SCA found that Dr Suliman owed a legal duty to Mrs
Sibaya and that such duty arose immediately when Dr Suliman acceded to the request to ‘cover’ for
Mrs Sibaya’s contracted doctor. In coming to this conclusion, the SCA rejected Dr Suliman’s
contention that Mrs Sibaya was not his patient and that he was merely ‘covering’ for Mrs Sibaya’s
contracted Doctor.
The SCA further concluded that Dr Suliman had breached his legal duty to care by failing to act as the
reasonable obstetrician would have acted. The SCA held that if Dr Suliman had attended to Mrs
Sibaya, he would have detected the distress and would have taken measures that may reasonably
have prevented Mrs Sibaya’s baby developing cerebral palsy.
In deciding the matter of damages suffered by Mrs Sibaya, the SCA apportioned the damages
between the hospital and Dr Suliman on a 60:40 basis in favour of the hospital and in so doing upheld
the hospital’s argument that Dr Suliman was in contributory negligence with them and as such
damages should be apportioned accordingly.
- End -