The respondent, Mr Marthinus Albertus Deysel, instituted action in April 2000 against Dr Rene Truter and Dr Jan Venter for damages arising from alleged medical negligence during a series of eye operations performed between July and September 1993. The procedures allegedly caused corneal decompensation, necessitating a corneal graft in December 1996, complications thereafter, and ultimately the evisceration of Deysel’s right eye in April 1997, rendering him totally blind (his left eye having already been lost). As early as 1994, Deysel complained to the Medical and Dental Council and consulted various ophthalmologists. Multiple expert opinions obtained between 1994 and 1999 did not support a finding of negligence. Only in early 2000 did an expert (Dr Steven) express the view that the treatment had been negligent, whereafter summons was issued. The appellants raised a special plea of prescription, contending that the claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Cape High Court was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the plaintiff’s action with costs.
This case is a leading authority on the interpretation of section 12(3) of the Prescription Act in the context of medical and professional negligence. It clarifies that prescription is not postponed until a claimant obtains a supportive expert opinion, and that knowledge of negligence as a legal conclusion is not required. The decision reinforces legal certainty and limits indefinite delays in instituting delictual claims.