A David-and-Goliath battle between pharmaceutical retailer Clicks and a woman who claims she almost bled to death after being dispensed the incorrect medication is being fought in the Western Cape High Court.

The customer is seeking damages of R5.9m.

Clicks has opposed the claim and argued that its customer also had a duty to check that she had received, and was taking, the correct medication for her condition as prescribed, reports the Mail & Guardian.

Joy Vorster visited the Edgemead Shopping Centre Clicks on 14 October 2013 to collect Xatral, a medication prescribed after she underwent a routine haemorrhoidectomy.

But instead of the correct drug, her attorney Henry Shields alleged in court papers, the pharmacist handed her Xarelto, a blood-thinning medicine that prevents clotting.

Shields argued in court papers that, just hours after ingesting the medication, she began to ‘bleed profusely’.

‘The defendant (Clicks) had a duty of care to all members of the public who purchased pharmaceutical products … and, in particular, a duty to the plaintiff to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the products supplied would reflect the products prescribed,’ Shields said.

Shield said the dispenser had ‘failed to exercise basic and proper duties of care applicable to a pharmacist, … with particular regard to the potential dangers attached to the product he supplied, especially since it is contraindicated in numerous circumstances and should ‘be treated with the appropriate degree of caution’. 

Vorster had also suffered ‘a loss of the amenities of life and has experienced pain, suffering and psychological trauma’ that would continue in future, reports the M&G.

Shields said Vorster had been in 'significant danger' of not surviving the trauma and had been ‘acutely aware of her situation’ that had led to her being ‘bedridden and unable to mobilise’ for a significant time.

Clicks’ attorney Julia Penn argued that while it admitted the employee who handed Vorster the medication worked for it at the time, it had ‘no knowledge’ regarding the allegation of incorrect medication being dispensed and ingested.

Penn admitted that products supplied in error could cause injury but denied the allegations that the pharmacist had failed in his duty of care to cross-check and ensure the correct medication was handed to Vorster. 

Penn argued that, if the court found that Clicks was negligent as alleged, Vorster herself had also been negligent in that she ‘failed to take reasonable care and caution to ensure that she collected the correctly prescribed medication’ and when ingesting the medication to ensure she had taken the correct medication and dose her doctor had prescribed.

She asked the court to dismiss Vorster’s claim with costs, and alternatively, that any damages awarded ‘be reduced by her degree of contributory fault’.

The parties are awaiting a trial date for the matter to be heard.

Full Mail & Guardian report