Du Preez v Pretorius

The appellant was diagnosed with stage III testicular cancer with metastases and underwent surgical removal of his left testis in November 2010. Instead of immediately pursuing conventional oncology treatment, he consulted the respondent, a general practitioner who administered insulin potentiation therapy (IPT), an alternative cancer treatment. The respondent treated the appellant with IPT between November 2010 and February 2011. During this period, tumour markers initially decreased but later rose. The appellant abandoned IPT and consulted a conventional oncologist, who administered four cycles of BEP chemotherapy, after which the cancer went into remission. The appellant sued the respondent for damages, alleging negligent misrepresentation and negligent breach of contractual and delictual duties, contending that IPT was inappropriate, ineffective, and caused him unnecessary expense and further treatment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the centrality of causation and proof of damages in medical negligence and misrepresentation claims in South African law. It illustrates that even if alternative or controversial medical treatments are involved, liability will not arise unless false representations, negligence, and causally linked damages are properly pleaded and proved. The judgment also cautions against poorly formulated separations of issues under Uniform Rule 33(4).