M.Sumathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent herein to take necessary steps to conduct enquiry against the respondents 6 to 9 and directing the 2nd respondent hospital to exhume and conduct post-mortem and report the same within a short time.

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Nagarajan For Respondent(s): Mr. P.Ganesan, AGP RR1 to 5 R-6 to R9 – Not ready notice

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent

¶28

herein to take necessary steps to conduct enquiry against the respondents 6 to 9 and directing the 2nd respondent hospital to exhume and conduct post-mortem and report the same within a short time

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that she had a German Shepherd Female Dog, aged about 9 years. On 20.07.2020, when the petitioner taken her dog for simple issue to Kadambattur Veterinary Hospital, one Jayashree Rani injected wrong medicine to the dog. Due to the improper treatment to the dog, it affected with many side effects and died on 14.12.2020. The petitioner made several

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 821 of 2021

¶32

representations to the third respondent for taking action for the negligence in treatment and the same is not considered. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the second respondent to find out whether any medical negligence occurred in the treatment given by the doctor and forward a report to the petitioner within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that a pet was taken for treatment initially on 12.12.2019 and the said dog which is reported to have been treated with Ciprofloxacin was alive for more than five months. Only after five months, the said dog had expired. Based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent conducted enquiry and it was found that the allegation levelled against the doctors are false. On the instructions issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry, the Joint Director had taken proper action on the complaint. It was found that proper treatment was given to the petitioner.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

It is the main grievance of the petitioner that a pet animal was died for

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP No. 821 of 2021

¶39

improper treatment of the duty doctor who was available in the hospital at the relevant point of time. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. Even thereafter, the petitioner filed a present writ petition for taking necessary action against the Doctors. However, the respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent. However, the first respondent is not an expert body to decide the issue.

¶40

Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to call for entire medical records from the Kadambathur Veterinary Hospital and find out whether any medical negligence occurred or not. After enquiry, the second respondent shall communicate to the report to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41