Doctor suffers degloving injury in dog attack, undergoes plastic surgery- Court orders Rs 1.3 lakh compensation

Accordingly, the bench comprising Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dr Ambika Sharma ordered, "In view of my above discussion and findings given on issue on Issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed partly and plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the defendant No.1 & 2 on account of the medical and incidental expenses for curing/treating the injuries suffered owing to the negligent and neglectful act of dog bite done by the dog of the defendant No.1 & 2. As far as rate of interest is concerned, plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum, which is, too, exorbitant. Therefore, the plaintiff is granted simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% from the date of decree till its realization. Further, plaintiff is also entitled for damages and compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for causing reputational, economical, mental and social loss from the defendant No.1 & 2. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."

The history of the case goes back to January 18, 2020, when the petitioner/doctor went to the terrace of her housing society to collect clothes that had been hung out to dry. As per the case details, the doctor found that the door approaching the terrace was locked from the terrace side. When she knocked on the door, it was found that her neighbour was present there with five pet dogs, and all of them were roaming, uncontrolled and unchained.

It was alleged despite the doctor's request, her neighbour only chained 3 dogs and opened the door. Meanwhile, the doctor was under the impression that all the dogs had been tied/chained, and when she entered the terrace area, she found that two of them were still roaming. While the doctor was collecting her clothes, one of the roaming dogs started approaching her, and on this, the petitioner requested her neighbour to keep it away as she was scared of dogs.

However, while the petitioner was having the conversation, one of the dogs suddenly attacked her and pushed her. Due to this, she fell down, and thereafter the dog attacked the forehead and scalp of the petitioner doctor and scratched the flesh with its teeth, causing degloving injury whereby an extensive section of skin was completely torn off the underlying tissue, severing its blood supply.

Allegedly, the dog became more ferocious, and somehow the petitioner managed to run downstairs. She was taken to the hospital by the neighbour, along with another neighbour. Intimation to the police agency was given as the negligent act committed by the neighbour also constituted an offence under Section 289 of the IPC.

However, both neighbours allegedly admitted their mistake and requested not to take any legal action. They also assured to bear the treatment cost and compensate the petitioner. On such assurance, the petitioner did not pursue the police complaint and accordingly, a formal FIR could not be registered against them. 

The petitioner had to undergo medical treatment, including emergency plastic surgery and anti-rabies treatment at a private hospital in Mohali. For this, she had to spend Rs 30,000. However, the petitioner/doctor submitted before the Court that despite the initial assurances by the dog owners to bear her treatment costs and compensate her for the trauma, the neighbours later failed to honour their commitment. Therefore, filing the case, the doctor 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.

On the other hand, the defendants/doctors' neighbours denied the allegations of negligence. They claimed that the injury was caused by a fall, not a dog bite. They also claimed that on the day of the incident, only two dogs were on the terrace and they were duly chained. It was alleged that the doctor came to the rooftop and started teasing the dogs by showing them sticks. Due to this, the dog started barking at her. Consequently, the doctor's foot got stuck in the pipes lying on the roof, and she fell and sustained the alleged injury.

Further, the doctor's neighbour also claimed that they were animal welfare activists and had kept only the permissible number of doctors, who were all duly registered and vaccinated. She also claimed that she had 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 claimed that from 2005-2009, they had rescued and fostered another 150 birds, 60 dogs, three cats and 16 snakes.

Meanwhile, during the proceedings, a sanitary inspector of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation deposed that the concerned neighbour had kept four dogs in the house against the permissible limit of two. For this, the civic body challened her on October 8, 2020.

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

After taking note of the submissions, the court found inconsistencies in the statements of the defendants and held, "Defendants in written statement as mentioned that she is animal lover and has rescued more than 1500 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 MCdefendant No.3 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 defendant No.1 & 2. Hence, from above discussion, after perusal of record and after appreciation of evidence and after hearing arguments of both the counsels for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that preponderance of probabilities lies in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff has been successful in discharge the onus of this issue which was placed upon her. Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the medical expenses as prayed for. Therefore, this issue is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant," it added.

The District Court, after examining witness testimonies, medical records, photographs, and municipal documents, concluded that the negligence was established on the part of the dog owners.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/chandigarh-district-court-316835.pdf

Also Read: Kerala hospital, surgeon, anaesthesiologist fined Rs 19.5 lakh for anaesthesia complications after orchidectomy