The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

The promulgation of the Consumer Protection Act has brought about significant developments and protection to the rights of consumers within the Republic of South Africa. This Act, which came into operation on the 1st April 2011, now affords protection to any consumer who purchases goods, services or who enter into a transaction with a supplier in the ordinary course of the supplier’s business. The meaning of ‘consumer’ extends to patients who seek medical assistance from a health professional/ institution while the reference to ‘goods’ include anything marketed for human consumption including medicines, medical devices and consumables provided to patients by such health professionals/ institutions.

The Act further introduces what is known as a “no-fault” principle, with its provisions entailing that consumers (including patients) have the right to expect
any goods which they purchase to be:
(i) Reasonably suitable for the purpose for which they were intended;
(ii) In good working order, free from defects; and
(iii) Usable and durable for a reasonable period of time.

The consumer can therefore claim compensation from a producer or retailer of goods in the event that harm is caused as a result of the:
(a) Supply of unsafe goods;
(b) A product failure, defect or hazard in goods; or
(c) Insufficient instructions or warning to the consumer relating to any hazard relating to any hazard arising from or associated with the use of the goods, irrespective of whether the harm is the result of negligence on the part of any of these parties.

It further entails that consumers are also entitled to the performance of services in a manner and of a quality that persons are generally entitled to expect when engaging the services of a service provider, particularly a health professional in the medical context.

This means that patients now have the right to sue anyone in the supply chain (including health professionals i.e. Orthotist or Prosthetist) and hold them liable for any harm and/or cost of any damage which may arise as a result of the supply of a defective prosthesis, implants, pacemakers and medications. This is contrary to the previous position which allowed consumers (patients) to rely only on contractual remedies against a manufacturer whose product caused harm or alternatively the difficulty of having to prove fault (wrongfulness) on the part of the manufacture when instituting a civil action. With the introduction of the “no-fault” (strict liability) principle the patient need only prove that the relevant goods (that were unsafe, defective, hazardous or contained inadequate instructions relating to a hazard) have caused harm or loss.

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

The promulgation of the Consumer Protection Act has brought about significant developments and protection to the rights of consumers within the Republic of South Africa. This Act, which came into operation on the 1st April 2011, now affords protection to any consumer who purchases goods, services or who enter into a transaction with a supplier in the ordinary course of the supplier’s business. The meaning of ‘consumer’ extends to patients who seek medical assistance from a health professional/ institution while the reference to ‘goods’ include anything marketed for human consumption including medicines, medical devices and consumables provided to patients by such health professionals/ institutions.

The Act further introduces what is known as a “no-fault” principle, with its provisions entailing that consumers (including patients) have the right to expect
any goods which they purchase to be:
(i) Reasonably suitable for the purpose for which they were intended;
(ii) In good working order, free from defects; and
(iii) Usable and durable for a reasonable period of time.

The consumer can therefore claim compensation from a producer or retailer of goods in the event that harm is caused as a result of the:
(a) Supply of unsafe goods;
(b) A product failure, defect or hazard in goods; or
(c) Insufficient instructions or warning to the consumer relating to any hazard relating to any hazard arising from or associated with the use of the goods, irrespective of whether the harm is the result of negligence on the part of any of these parties.

It further entails that consumers are also entitled to the performance of services in a manner and of a quality that persons are generally entitled to expect when engaging the services of a service provider, particularly a health professional in the medical context.

This means that patients now have the right to sue anyone in the supply chain (including health professionals i.e. Orthotist or Prosthetist) and hold them liable for any harm and/or cost of any damage which may arise as a result of the supply of a defective prosthesis, implants, pacemakers and medications. This is contrary to the previous position which allowed consumers (patients) to rely only on contractual remedies against a manufacturer whose product caused harm or alternatively the difficulty of having to prove fault (wrongfulness) on the part of the manufacture when instituting a civil action. With the introduction of the “no-fault” (strict liability) principle the patient need only prove that the relevant goods (that were unsafe, defective, hazardous or contained inadequate instructions relating to a hazard) have caused harm or loss.