The appellant, an anaesthetist, rendered medical treatment to Mr Grundlingh on 20 February 2002 for injuries Grundlingh sustained in a motor vehicle collision on 2 October 1998. The treatment cost R1,319.82. Grundlingh had submitted his third party claim to the Road Accident Fund on 1 September 2000, before the appellant had treated him. The appellant submitted his claim directly to the Fund on 27 June 2002 in terms of s 24(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. When the Fund did not respond, the appellant caused a magistrates' court summons to be served on 11 February 2003. The Fund raised a special plea of prescription, claiming the appellant's claim had prescribed as it was submitted more than three years after the accident. The Fund settled Grundlingh's claim on 27 November 2002 without taking the appellant's claim into account.
The appeal was upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. The order of the court below was amended to read: 'The appeal is upheld with costs.'
A supplier's claim under s 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is an accessory claim that is dependent upon the third party's claim against the Fund. Where a third party has submitted a claim to the Fund within the prescribed three-year period in s 23(1), and that claim has not yet prescribed or been finalized, a supplier's subsequent claim for treatment rendered to that third party cannot become prescribed, even if the supplier submits the claim more than three years after the accident. The supplier's claim, being part and parcel of the third party's claim, is subject to the same prescription period as the third party's claim.
The court observed that even though Grundlingh had not yet been treated by the appellant at the time he submitted his claim to the Fund, there was no impediment to his amending the claim to include the appellant's claim at any stage before the claim had been finalized, as by doing so he would merely have augmented his existing claim for damages. The court also noted that interpreting s 17(5) in the manner contended by the Fund would be illogical as it would effectively negate the supplier's right to claim directly from the Fund.
This case is significant in South African law as it clarifies the relationship between a medical supplier's direct claim against the Road Accident Fund under s 17(5) and the underlying third party's claim. It establishes that a supplier's claim is accessory to the third party's claim and cannot prescribe while the third party's claim remains valid and unprescribed. This interpretation protects suppliers who render treatment to injured parties after the three-year period from the accident but before the third party's claim has been finalized or prescribed. The judgment ensures that the statutory right granted to suppliers under s 17(5) is given practical effect and is not negated by a restrictive interpretation of prescription provisions.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate