Genesis loses case against medical council
An acting high court judge threw out Genesis’s defamation case against the Council for Medical Schemes on Tuesday and rebuked the medical scheme for engaging in time-wasting and costly litigation.
Acting Judge Norman Davis dismissed Genesis’s case before the High Court in Pretoria, after the scheme petitioned the court to compel the regulator to remove “defamatory statements” from its website.
At the heart of the dispute is the council’s intimation on its website that Genesis might have contravened the law by failing to comply with a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment on prescribed minimum benefits. In a news letter published on the council’s site in January, it wrote: “The scheme continues to disregard the court pronouncement and still declines funding members’ accounts for services rendered in private hospitals.”
This prompted Genesis to institute its application.
Davis said that while it might be defamatory to allege that a scheme was acting contrary to statutory provisions, such an allegation would not attract liability if it was true and if the publication of such a statement were in the public interest.
The judge ruled that the statement published on the council’s website was in line with the appellate court’s ruling.
This is not the first time the two parties have been at loggerheads. In 2015, Genesis approached the Supreme Court of Appeal to challenge regulation 8 of the Medical Schemes Act, which governs what benefits members are entitled to. The scheme insists on designating state facilities on its preferred network of service providers, which is contrary to council rules. Genesis argued in the appellate court that because its members accepted its terms and conditions, they waived their rights to prescribed minimum benefits. The case was eagerly watched because of its potential to set a precedent.
In the high court matter, Davis criticised Genesis, saying the medical scheme’s attitude towards the appellate court’s judgment remained out of step with the ruling. Davies said Genesis was also contradictory or at least confused about the application of its own rules.
Council spokeswoman Elsabe Conradie said there was a case before its appeals committee against Genesis with regard to the scheme’s designated service providers.
Counsel for Genesis, Arthur James, of Clyde & Company, said his client would study the judgment.