Rabia Helga Beukes v Dr Samuel Johannes Smith

The appellant, Mrs Rabia Beukes, underwent a laparoscopic hernia repair performed by the respondent, Dr Samuel Smith, in February 2012. Following the procedure, she suffered a colon perforation, septic complications, multiple further surgeries, a temporary colostomy, prolonged hospitalisation, and alleged long-term sequelae. Mrs Beukes sued Dr Smith for damages, alleging that he failed to obtain her informed consent because he did not adequately explain that the hernia could alternatively be repaired by laparotomy, which she claimed carried less risk. It was common cause that there was no negligence in the performance of the surgery itself. The High Court dismissed her claim, finding that informed consent had been obtained. She appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case reaffirms the patient-centred test for informed consent in South African medical negligence law and confirms that disclosure is limited to material risks and reasonable alternatives, not every conceivable benefit or facility. It illustrates judicial deference to trial court credibility findings and clarifies that informed consent does not require exhaustive disclosure beyond what a reasonable patient would regard as significant.