WONG is not a happy man after being bitten by a guard dog at Damansara Intan last month.
He claims the huge guard dog attacked him as he was walking in front of Block A on Feb 20, of the building, on Jalan SS20/27.
�The dog bit me on my right leg, calf and knees. As I used my left leg to kick it to protect myself, my pants were also torn,� WONG says.
When he complained to the building�s security staff, WONG says, he was assured the management would pay for his medical costs.
With that assurance, WONG adds, he proceeded to seek medical attention.
�However, I was shocked when I went back to the Security Office to seek compensation for the medical fees and damage to my pants.
�Another staff therer denied there would be any form of compensation.
He was firm in not paying me any money, stating that I had walked there at my own risk.�
Taken aback by this response, WONG says there were no warning sign anywhere around the building.
He also points out the �ferocious� guard dog was not chained or fenced in; it was roaming freely, posing a threat to members of the public.
WONG has lodged a report on the incident at the Damansara police station and wants an explanation from the building management.
? AFTER conducting an investigation, Dijaya Corporation communications and promotions manager Serena S.S. Lim was firm against making any compensation payment.
She says WONG was given ample warning but he insisted on going near the fenced-up area where the guard dog was.
According to the security staff at the scene, WONG was walking towards the fenced-up area when he met the company�s dog handler.
�WONG asked the handler where the dog was. The handler replied it was at the fenced area that WONG was planning to go to.�
The handler warned WONG about the guard dog but he refused to heed the advice, says Lim.
�When WONG saw the guard dog, he tried to back away but it was too late. The dog attacked him. It would not have been provoked if WONG had not gone near the fenced-up area.�
After the attack, Lim says WONG demanded compensation from the staff. He also refused to explain why he insisted on heading to the fenced-up area despite being warned and knowing of the dog�s presence there.
�We, the management, need to understand the situation before we can determine if we should reimburse WONG�s medical claims. Unfortunately, we were not given the chance of discussing the issue with WONG.�
Lim adds there are at least three warning signs informing the public of the guard dog�s presence.
This article was taken from: The Malay Mail: 29 March 2009
He claims the huge guard dog attacked him as he was walking in front of Block A on Feb 20, of the building, on Jalan SS20/27.
�The dog bit me on my right leg, calf and knees. As I used my left leg to kick it to protect myself, my pants were also torn,� WONG says.
When he complained to the building�s security staff, WONG says, he was assured the management would pay for his medical costs.
With that assurance, WONG adds, he proceeded to seek medical attention.
�However, I was shocked when I went back to the Security Office to seek compensation for the medical fees and damage to my pants.
�Another staff therer denied there would be any form of compensation.
He was firm in not paying me any money, stating that I had walked there at my own risk.�
Taken aback by this response, WONG says there were no warning sign anywhere around the building.
He also points out the �ferocious� guard dog was not chained or fenced in; it was roaming freely, posing a threat to members of the public.
WONG has lodged a report on the incident at the Damansara police station and wants an explanation from the building management.
? AFTER conducting an investigation, Dijaya Corporation communications and promotions manager Serena S.S. Lim was firm against making any compensation payment.
She says WONG was given ample warning but he insisted on going near the fenced-up area where the guard dog was.
According to the security staff at the scene, WONG was walking towards the fenced-up area when he met the company�s dog handler.
�WONG asked the handler where the dog was. The handler replied it was at the fenced area that WONG was planning to go to.�
The handler warned WONG about the guard dog but he refused to heed the advice, says Lim.
�When WONG saw the guard dog, he tried to back away but it was too late. The dog attacked him. It would not have been provoked if WONG had not gone near the fenced-up area.�
After the attack, Lim says WONG demanded compensation from the staff. He also refused to explain why he insisted on heading to the fenced-up area despite being warned and knowing of the dog�s presence there.
�We, the management, need to understand the situation before we can determine if we should reimburse WONG�s medical claims. Unfortunately, we were not given the chance of discussing the issue with WONG.�
Lim adds there are at least three warning signs informing the public of the guard dog�s presence.
This article was taken from: The Malay Mail: 29 March 2009
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment