Chennai, Sep 21: The Madras High Court has directed the Secretary, Veterinary Council of India (VCI), New Delhi, to consider and dispose of a complaint by a city advocate about ill treatment of his pet dog, resulting in its death, on merit and in accordance with the law.
The court permitted the petitioner to send a copy of his earlier representation to the Council.
The petitioner, S Venkataraman from Chennai, said he owned an 'imported' breed of dog, which was registered with the Kennel Club of India. It was given an extensive training by a dog trainer from the UK and had won prizes in various shows.
On March 6, 2006, the dog's condition turned worse and 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,Mr Venkataraman submitted.
The doctor collected the blood samples and gave it to the petitioner. The full test report was not ready.
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.
The dog was taken to an unhygienic treatment room, where left over dextrose drips were administered along with strong antibiotics, infected needles. The treatment was continued for two more days based on the incomplete pathology report.
This resulted in tick infestation and the dog died on March 11,2006 the petitioner submitted.
Mr Venkataraman said the death of the dog came as 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 discharged their professional duty in a diligent manner. His notice to the hospital should have been referred to the State Veterinary Council for any enquiry.
However, it was not done, the petitioner.
The Director had sent a reply stating there was no deficiency in service.
The petitioner prayed the court to issue a direction to the VCI to award the appropriate punishment to the two doctors.
Justice A Kulasekaran directed the VCI to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 27, 2007 expeditiously.