The South African Police Service Medical Scheme ('Polmed') v Lamana

The respondents, members of the South African Police Service and beneficiaries of the Polmed medical scheme, sought to compel Polmed and its administrator, Qualsa Healthcare (Pty) Ltd, to pay medical benefits into a bank account nominated by them, namely that of a trust associated with their treating doctor, Dr Peer. Historically, Polmed had paid the doctor directly. In 2008 Polmed changed its policy, deciding to pay benefits only into members’ personal bank accounts to curb fraud. The respondents concluded agreements instructing Polmed to pay benefits into the trust account, but Polmed refused. The High Court ordered Polmed to comply, interpreting its rules to allow payment into a generally acceptable bank account. Polmed appealed. While the appeal was pending, Polmed’s rules were amended to require payment only into members’ personal bank accounts, rendering the dispute moot.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, payable jointly and severally by the appellants.

The case is significant for clarifying the application of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act, particularly the duty on litigants to disclose facts rendering an appeal academic and the requirement that such facts be properly placed before the court by affidavit. It underscores that appellate courts will not decide moot issues absent exceptional circumstances and provides guidance on procedural fairness in applications for leave to appeal.