CASE NUMBER: 13/2009 – LENMED CLINIC VS etv – RIGHT TO REPLY

Complaint that clinic was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to reply to allegations made against the clinic after the tragic death of a school girl from meningitis.  The allegations were that the clinic acted negligently and that there was no doctor on duty when the girl was admitted to the clinic.  The CEO of the clinic was interviewed by the 3^rd Degree team from the Respondent. The CEO denied the allegations of negligence.  The CEO also denied that his response was sought on the allegation that there was no doctor on duty.  A dispute arose between the parties on these matters.  When the clinic was invited to send a representative to discuss the topic of meningitis on air, the CEO could not attend but sent the senior nursing sister instead.  During the programme the school girl’s case came up for discussion.  A dispute arose as to whether the clinic knew that the case of the death of the school girl would come up for discussion. Complaint was brought in terms of clause 34 relating to news.  The programme on air comprised a discussion of controversial issues of public importance. It is not within the purview of the Tribunal to solve disputes on facts.  It is the duty of the Tribunal to determine whether the Complainant had the right to reply in this instance.  The Tribunal found that the Complainant had a sufficient right to reply.  No contravention of the Code was found and the complaint was not upheld.