Blind man claims hospital group invaded his privacy
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 monitor him.
According to a Pretoria News report, Nicolaas de Jager (66) objected in the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) to the introduction by Netcare of the evidence of the private investigator in a bid to prove that De Jager’s blindness in one eye following a failed cataract operation and lens implantation 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, children and grandchild by having them followed and their movements recorded.
De Jager stated he has been unable to continue with his work, and all of his existing contracts have been cancelled. He is claiming damages for loss of income/income capacity, as well as future loss of income and the capacity to earn a living.
The question of merit was settled in favour of De Jager, with the hospital group making two interim payments totalling R4.5m for damages.
De Jager later upped his initial claim to around R25m.
His claim included compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings and earning capacity, in addition to general damages.
The hospital then hired a private investigator, to ‘prove’ that the damages were not as severe as De Jager claimed. The investigators recorded that De Jager used no walking aids at any time while under observation, notes the Pretoria News report.
It also made a number of other observations regarding his movements and those of his family, including his grandchild, in a bid to prove that he was not as severely injured as he claimed.
Objecting to the introduction of this evidence, De Jager’s legal team argued that Netcare had conducted unsanctioned surveillance in violation of his right to privacy, as well as that of his family.
De Jager and his team also objected to the use of experts, on the basis that the observations by the private forensic investigators did not constitute expert evidence and that their evidence was immaterial and irrelevant to the dispute before the court.
Judgment was reserved on the question of the admissiblity of evidence.
In a separate matter, De Jager and his family are claiming millions more from the hospital group for invasion of their privacy.
They said the pictures and video footage taken of them and their movements, including that of their little grandson, were published in the public domain without their consent as it formed part of the public court file.
The Pretoria News notes they said this infringed on the terms of Protection of Public Information Act and violated their rights.
The hospital group has indicated it will defend the damages claim, but has not yet filed its defence.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
