Vet charged for antibiotics after hurting pet

yevsk

I was talking to my mum earlier and she had her cat at the vet to get its nails trimmed. The vet was new at the practice and apparently did not do a great job in general, but in particular she cut one of the cat's nails incorrectly causing its foot to bleed. She bandaged up the paw and gave the cat an injection and apologized, but when my mum was paying at the reception the bill was £14 instead of the expected £4. The vet had sent the bill for the injection through to reception. When my mum queried this, apparently the receptionist said "sorry, but these things happen".

I have looked through the Supply of Goods and Services Act but I am still not quite sure if I have a case for going and asking for her £10 back.

Any advice or experience would be much appreciated. Thanks

bod1467

yevsk wrote: »

I have looked through the Supply of Goods and Services Act but I am still not quite sure if I have a case for going and asking for her £10 back.

The simple answer is No ... YOU have no rights at all, as YOU were not party to the contract.

Your MUM however has every right. The injection was given unbidden, without prior consent (unless such consent is written into the general T&Cs of use of the practice), and was required solely because the contracted task was not carried out with reasonable skill and care.

IMHO.

shaun_from_Africa

Don't forget that it is an animal that you are talking about and unless that animal is anaesthetised before the nail clipping, (something that carries far more risk than would be normally justified for such a job) there is always the possibility that it will move or struggle at just the wrong time.

It's entirely possible that even if the vet was to carry out the procedure with the utmost skill, your pet could still have ended up with a small cut or nick as it's impossible to totally predict what a living creature of any description might do if conscious, and following an injury, their guidelines might suggest that an antibiotic should be given as a precautionary measure.
If they failed to give this injection and an infection happened, many people might consider that they failed in their duty of care for not anticipating the possible outcome.

I would be amazed if the vet's terms and conditions for pet owners didn't give them the right to take what they considered to be appropriate actions without consultation with that owner should they consider it necessary for the well being of the animal.

As with bod's comments above, this is also just my opinion and might not be legally correct.

sheramber

I would suggest that your mother write a polite letter to the pracitce manager explaining what happened and saying she feels it is unfair that she has to pay for the antibiotic.

That may result in the charge being cancelled, especially if she is a regular client.