Hilchos Issurei Mizbeiach 2:15

Pursuant to the preceding halacha, let’s say that the animal with water in its eyes ate fresh grass through Adar into first half of Nisan, followed by dried grass from the second half of Nisan and throughout Iyar; in such a case, the animal ate the appropriate grasses for three months in the proper order (but not in the prescribed months). Or let’s say that the animal ate a fig’s volume of grass after eating or before drinking, or the animal was tied up, by itself or in a garden near a city (each of which goes counter to the prescribed treatment). If the animal wasn’t healed, there is a doubt as to whether the blemish is permanent or temporary. Therefore, if someone inflicted another type of blemish on this animal, he would not be subject to the penalty of lashes. If the animal ate the grasses the right way at the right times and wasn’t healed, we see that it has a permanent blemish.

Hilchos Issurei Mizbeiach 2:16

There remains a doubt whether the animal is considered permanently blemished from the time it initially developed the condition or from the time they determined that it would not be resolved. Therefore, if someone redeemed the animal before they determined that its condition would not be resolved and he derived benefit from the thing he used to redeem the animal after determining that the condition would not be resolved, there is a doubt as to whether he illegally benefitted from a consecrated animal (me’ilah). In such a case, he need not bring a sacrifice for misappropriation, as will be discussed IY”H in Hilchos Me’ilah.