Chandigarh court awards Rs 1.3 lakh to doctor who had to undergo plastic surgery after neighbour’s dog bit her in 2020

“Further, plaintiff (Dr Bhumika Gupta) is also entitled for damages and compensation of Rs 1 lakh for causing reputational, economical, mental and social loss from the defendant,” the court ordered in the detailed judgment which was made available on Monday.

The attack and emergency surgery

As per the civil suit filed by Dr Gupta on September 7, 2020, the incident took place on January 18, 2020, when she went to the terrace of her housing society to collect clothes which had been hung out to dry. She found the terrace door locked from the outside and, upon knocking, discovered that her neighbour was present there with five pet dogs roaming freely.

Believing that the dogs had been tied, she entered the terrace. Moments later, one of the dogs suddenly attacked her, causing her to fall and sustain a severe dog bite on her forehead and scalp, allegedly causing a degloving injury whereby an extensive section of skin was completely torn off the underlying tissue. As per Dr Gupta, she underwent emergency plastic surgery and anti-rabies treatment at a private hospital in Mohali.

Dr Gupta told the court that despite initial assurances by the dog owners to bear her treatment costs and compensate her for the trauma, they later failed to honour their commitment. She thus claimed to have spent around Rs 30,000 on medical treatment and sought Rs 2 lakh as damages for physical pain, mental agony, and reputational and professional loss, through the civil suit.

Defendants claimed injury was caused by fall

The defendants, Divya and Manpal Setia, however, claimed the allegations were baseless and had no supporting evidence. They also denied negligence and alleged that the injury was caused by a fall, not a dog bite. They claimed that on the day of the incident, there were two dogs on the terrace, which were duly chained. It was alleged that Dr Gupta came to the rooftop and started teasing the dogs by showing them sticks. As a consequence, the dog started barking at her. Due to this, her foot got stuck in the pipes lying on the roof, and she fell, sustaining the alleged injury.

Divya also claimed that they were animal welfare activists and had kept only the permissible number of dogs, all duly registered and vaccinated, and she had also been working for a social and noble cause since 2001, rescuing more than 20 cows, 22 snakes and fostering numerous animals, including dogs, squirrels, rats, and cats. From 2001 to 2005, they had rescued and fostered over 40 birds, 10 street dogs and four cats, she stated. From 2005-2009, they had rescued and fostered another 150 birds, 60 dogs, three cats and 16 snakes.

During the court proceedings, a sanitary inspector of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation deposed that Divya kept four dogs in the house against the permissible limit of two. Accordingly, the civic body challaned her for the same on October 8, 2020.

A consultant plastic surgeon from a private hospital was also examined, who deposed that due to the dog bite, Dr Gupta’s forehead skin on the right side was degloved from hairline till the eyebrow, with the frontal bone exposed.

‘Defendant violated civic bye-laws’

On finding inconsistencies in statements of defendants, the court held, “…Defendants in written statement as mentioned that she is animal lover and has rescued more than 1,500 animals, birds, snake etc, but it is settled law that a master who is aware of the vicious propensities of the animal kept by him is bound to take care of the same that such vicious propensities do not pose a danger to human beings living around him….”

“…Defendants in this case have been proved not only negligent but also violator of bye-laws which has come on record in written statement of MC (municipal corporation), that challans were issued in violation of bye-laws of MC of keeping the dogs against permissible limits and plaintiff has proved that she in fact on the relevant date had suffered the injuries of dog bite which was kept by the defendants…,” held the court.

After examining witness testimonies, medical records, photographs, and municipal documents, the court concluded that the preponderance of evidence established negligence on the part of the dog owners.