An elderly man who claimed millions in damages against a hospital group after he went blind in one eye following an operation, has objected to the court accepting the forensic report submitted by the hospital group after it had a private investigator monitoring him.
Nicolaas de Jager, 66, objected in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, about the Netcare group wanting to introduce the evidence of the private investigator in a bid to prove that De Jager’s eye was in fact not hampering his ability to lead a normal life.
His lawyer, Conrad van der Vyver, submitted that the hospital group had violated the constitutional rights of De Jager, his wife and children, as well as his grandchild, by having them followed and their movements recorded.
On 18 March 18, 2014, he was admitted to the Netcare Pretoria East Hospital for a cataract operation and lens implantation. The operation was, however, unsuccessful, and De Jager is now permanently blind in his left eye. He has good vision in his right eye.
De Jager was a sole member of a close corporation, specialising in the manufacturing, procurement, and installation of specialised baking equipment. He is an electrical and wiring specialist by occupation.
De Jager alleges that he has been unable to continue with his profession and as a result, all his existing contracts have been cancelled. He claims damages for past loss of income/income capacity as well as future loss of income and income capacity.
The question of merits was settled at 100% in favour of De Jager. Subsequently, the hospital group made two interim payments to the tune of R4.5 million to the plaintiff for damages claimed.
De Jager later upped his initial multi-million rand damages claim, to around R25 million from the hospital group. His claim included compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings and earning capacity, as well as general damages.
The hospital then decided to obtain the services of a private investigator, to “prove” that the damages were not as severe as De Jager claimed.
At the end of their surveillance the investigators recorded that De Jager used no walking aids at any time during the observation. Even when being pulled along by his grandson, he did not appear to lose his balance, its report read.
It also recorded a number of other observations regarding his movements and that of his family, including his grandchild, in a bid to prove that he was not as severely injured as he claimed.
In objecting to this evidence being used, De Jager’s legal team argued that the hospital group had conducted an unsanctioned surveillance, which was in violation of his right to privacy, as well as that of his family.
They told the court that less intrusive means were available to the hospital group, such as obtaining expert medical reports regarding his existing condition.
Apart from objecting to the invasion of privacy, De Jager and his team objected to the use of the reports of the aforesaid experts on the basis that the observations by the private forensic investigators do not constitute expert evidence and that their evidence was immaterial and irrelevant to the dispute before court.
Judgment was reserved on the question whether the evidence is admissible or not.
Meanwhile, in the latest development in the saga and in a separate matter, De Jager and his family are further claiming millions in damages from the hospital group after they claimed that the private investigators had invaded their privacy.
They said the pictures and video footage taken of them and their movements, including that of the little grandson, were published in the public domain without their consent as it formed part of the public court file.
They said this totally infringed the Protection of Public Information Act and it violated their rights.
Van der Vyver said the hospital group had indicated that it would defend the damages claim, but it had not yet filed its defence.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za