Soobramoney v Minister of Health KwaZulu-Natal

Full Title: Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 

Citation: (CCT32/97) [1997] ZACC 17; 1998(1) SA 765 (CC); 1997 (12) BCLR 1696 (27  November 1997) 

Court Name and Bench 

Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa. 

Bench: Chaskalson P 

 : Madala J 

 : Sachs J 

Date of Judgement: 

Judgement delivered on 27 November 1997 

Parties Involved:  

The Appellant, Thiagraj Soobramoney, a 41-year-old unemployed male with chronic renal  failure.  

The Respondent, Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal, representing the government of South  Africa. 

Facts of the Case 

This case is between the appellant, Mr. Soobramoney, who is a 41-year-old unemployed male  with a chronic disease that caused him to suffer a stroke and the defendant, the Minister of  KwaZulu-Natal. The appellant has had kidney failures and was in his final stages of chronic  renal failure, which is a disease that is linked to kidney failures.

The appellant had exhausted his financial resources and sought treatment at Addington Hospital,  a state-owned hospital in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. However, he was denied medical assistance  because the hospital had a policy of only admitting patients who could be cured within a short  period or those who were eligible for a transplant. Since Soobramoney did not meet these  criteria, he was denied treatment1. 

The appellant then approached the Durban High Court, arguing that his refusal by the Hospital to provide medical treatment for him violated his Constitutional right to life2. Soobramoney also  claimed that his right to emergency medical treatment was violated3. The High Court dismissed  his application, and he then appealed to the Constitutional Court. 

Issues Raised 

The issues raised before the court in this case were: 

• Whether the appellant had a right to receive treatment in terms of Section 27(3) of the  Constitution 
• Whether the appellant’s right to life as given by Section 11 of the Constitution of South  Africa was violated. 
• Whether the hospital’s rationing policy was reasonable and justifiable, given the limited  resources available for healthcare. 
• Whether the court should intervene in the allocation of healthcare resources and second guess the hospital’s medical decisions. 

Arguments of the Parties 

Appellant: Soobramoney 

Argued that the hospital’s refusal to provide treatment for him was a violation of Section 11 of  the Constitution, which is the right to life and emergency medical treatment, which is Section 27(3) of the Constitution. His condition was life-threatening and required immediate attention. 

The hospital’s rationing policy was unfair and discriminatory, and failed to consider the  appellant’s individual circumstances. 

Respondent: Minister of Health 

The hospital’s policy was reasonable and necessary due to limited resources. Soobramoney’s  condition was not an emergency under Section 27(1) as it was a chronic condition. The Minister  of Health, in this case, relied on the case of R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte 1995, to  support their argument that the court should not intervene in the allocation of healthcare  resources or second-guess medical decisions4. 

Judgement/ Final Decision 

The Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered a unanimous judgment in this case. The  Court held that the appellant’s chronic renal failure was not an emergency that called for  immediate remedial treatment. So, it did not constitute an emergency under Section 27(3) of the  Constitution, as it was a chronic disease. The Hospital’s rationing policy was deemed reasonable,  given the limited resources available for healthcare. The court decided that it should not  intervene in the allocation of healthcare resources as this would be an overreach of judicial  power. 

The court ultimately dismissed Soobramoney’s appeal, finding that the hospital’s decision did  not violate his constitutional rights. 

Conclusion 

This case remains a significant precedent in South African law, influencing the development of  healthcare policy and the arbitration of socio-economic rights. This is because this case  highlights the challenges of balancing individual healthcare needs with limited resources. The  Constitutional Court’s decision emphasised the importance of judicial regard for policy decisions  and the need for reasonableness in allocating healthcare resources. 

Bibliography 

Case Law: 

R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (1995). Soobramoney v Minister of Health (CCT32/97) [1997] ZACC 17.

Legislation:  

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

1Soobramoney v Minister of Health (CCT32/97) [1997] ZACC17. 

2 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 11. 

3 The Constitution 1996, s 27(3).

4R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (1995)