specifically with sterilisation he testified that at that stage they never had it at the hospital and that the consent form singed by the plaintiff was the standard form they used for all procedures. He agreed that under normal circumstances it is highly undesirable to use acronyms on consent forms but the circumstances under which people work at State Hospitals are not normal e.g. a doctor would see 50 to 90 patients a day. In respect of the acronyms he testified that they are used in the health passport because it is for fellow health workers to read and understand. He further testified that because of their workload and shortage of personnel “most of the things what we talk to our patients … we do not write down”. He testified that he had no independent recollection of the plaintiff given the large number of patients he dealt with and because of the effluction of time, and gave his evidence only with reference to his notes. He conceded during cross-examination that even though the use of acronyms on hospital records, like health passports, may be primarily for the benefit of health officials, the use of acronyms on consent forms is highly undesirable even more so in the case of an invasive procedure such as a sterilisation. The witness conceded that nothing appears in the health passport of the plaintiff to suggest that the sterilisation procedure had been canvassed. [36] Victorina Uuso Angula a registered nurse and midwife who worked in the maternity ward for over 18 years prepared the plaintiff and signed as a witness on the consent form. She confirmed the plaintiff was informed of the reason why the plaintiff had to undergo a caesarean section and testified that it was at that stage that the plaintiff said 19 she wanted to be sterilised after the doctor had explained it to her. She testified that she herself had also explained the contents of the consent form to the plaintiff. She conceded that her notes did not record this explanation and that it was a mistake made, and that due to the urgency of the operation did not complete fully the medical record of the plaintiff. [37] It is clear from the evidence of both Dr Mavetera and nurse Angula that they assumed that the plaintiff knew what sterilisation was and that she understood the consequences because she had attended antenatal classes where they also assumed plaintiff was informed of all aspects concerning sterilisation. [38] It was submitted by Mr Smuts who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, that this assumption relied on was plainly for the purpose of dispensing with the need for a proper explanation of the procedure and its risks and alternatives to it. [39] Dr Mavetera conceded during cross-examination that he should rather have advised the plaintiff to come back for sterilisation after 6 weeks. He stated that that is what they would normally do but couldn’t recall whether it was done in this case. Nurse Angula’s response to the same question was that a