2 surgeries, lost puppies: Why a Labrador owner lost a consumer case against vet

The district commission had on June 16, 2022, ruled in Singh’s favour and ordered the veterinarian to pay Rs 75,000 in relief.

“In the absence of any concrete evidence connecting the appellant/opposite party with the treatment in question, it cannot be held that the appellant/opposite party had provided any medical service to the bitch of the respondent/complainant or that the respondent/complainant is entitled to any compensation from him,” the September 9 ruling said.

‘Bald statement’

A bench of Presiding Judicial Member Harinderpal Singh Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal noted that, apart from “a bald statement”, the owner had not submitted “any prescription slip, diagnosis slip, or any other document” to prove that the doctor had examined his Labrador or treated her at his home.

The state commission also stated that before the district commission, the doctor had “specifically denied these allegations and stated that he is a Government Medical Officer and does not examine patients at their homes. He further categorically stated that the case in question was never attended to or treated by him”.

According to the ruling, there was not a single document to prove that the opposite party was a veterinary doctor and had carried out the female dog’s surgical procedure.

“The District Commission, while deciding the complaint, has failed to properly appreciate the written reply filed by the appellant/opposite party as well as the evidence placed on record by the respondent/complainant….there is not even a single document to establish that the appellant/opposite party had treated the bitch of the respondent/complainant or had received any fee from him towards such treatment. However, the District Commission has failed to thoroughly examine and appreciate the evidence available on record and, without properly considering the contentions, proceeded to pass the impugned order against the appellant/opposite party,” the order stated.

The commission went on to order a Rs 47,550 refund to the doctor, noting that he had deposited money at the time of filing the appeal and even after the District Commission’s 2022 ruling.

Takeaway

The ruling establishes the obligation of doctors to ensure proper treatment of patients and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab: 0172-269-3737) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

AIIMS Rishikesh ordered to pay Rs 60,000 after ‘wrongly declaring’ man as HIV positive

Woman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakh

Nearly 6 lakh cases pending in consumer commissions, over 860 posts vacant: Centre