Date:21/09/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/21/stories/2008092158140300.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Court issues directive to Veterinary Council of India

K.T. Sangameswaran

Lawyer had complained about treatment given to his pet dog, which resulted in its death

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Secretary, Office of the Veterinary Council of India (VCI), New Delhi, to consider and dispose of a complaint by a city advocate about the treatment of his pet dog, resulting in its death, on merit and in accordance with law.

The court permitted the petitioner to send a copy of his earlier representation to the Council.

S. Venkataraman of West Mambalam said he owned an imported dog, which was registered with the Kennel Club of India. It was given extensive training by a dog trainer from the U.K. and had won prizes in shows.

On March 6, 2006, the dog could not stand, and when its condition turned worse, it was taken to the Madras Veterinary College Teaching Hospital, Vepery, where Iyyappan of the Orthopaedics Department of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University examined it. He suggested X-rays to be taken at the hospital and blood tests at a private laboratory on Periyar Salai.

The doctor collected the blood samples and gave it to the petitioner. The full test report was not ready the next day. His son came to know that it was a laboratory meant for human beings.

Armed with the report, he took the dog to the doctor, who directed that it be taken to S. Prathaban, Professor and Head, Department of Clinics, of the hospital.

It was later taken to the unhygienic treatment room, where leftover dextrose drips was administered along with strong antibiotics, using infected needles.

The treatment continued for two more days based on the incomplete pathology report. This resulted in tick infestation and due to piercing of veins with needles, the dog died on March 11.

Mr. Venkataraman said the death of the dog was a shock to his family. The hospital was projected on the website as having all facilities for pathological tests, surgery and inpatient facilities.

The two doctors had not done their professional duty in a diligent manner. His notice to the hospital should have been referred to the State Veterinary Council for enquiry. It was not done.

The director had sent a reply stating there was no deficiency in service. No action was taken on his complaint to the VCI.

He prayed the court to issue a direction to the VCI to award appropriate punishment to the two doctors. Justice A. Kulasekaran said that though the prayer was for larger relief, the petitioner’s counsel had confined his arguments to the limited extent of directing the VCI to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated January 27, 2007 expeditiously.

He said he was not going into the merits of the case.