Pranav B Prem                                                                                                                                     

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban) bench comprising Pradeep G. Kadu (President) and Gauri M. Kapse (Member) has held Sukh Sagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service after it served food containing stone particles, which caused the complainant’s dental crown to break.

Also Read: NCLT Chennai: Claims from Separate Work Orders and Multiple Operational Creditors Cannot Be Clubbed to Meet IBC Threshold

Brief Facts

On 28 September 2022, the complainant, Kaushik Lodh, along with his friend, visited Sukh Sagar Hotel in Mumbai for lunch. According to the complainant, a massive stone-like particle was present in the food he ordered. On biting it, he experienced severe pain and damage to an expensive crown on the left side of his upper jaw. The matter was immediately reported to the hotel manager, who apologized for the incident.

The following day, the complainant visited Sabka Dentist Clinic, where the damage to the crown was confirmed to be due to bite impact, and the cost of replacing it was estimated at ₹14,500, with an additional ₹1,500 for composite filling. The complainant then sought damages from the hotel, but his request was refused. He subsequently filed a complaint before the Mumbai District Commission, supported by documents including the food bill and the dentist’s certificate. In 2024, he also submitted additional evidence claiming further dental treatment related to the incident.

Hotel’s Submissions

Although the hotel appeared in the matter, it failed to file its written statement within the prescribed 45-day period, leading the Commission to proceed “No WS” against it. The hotel later filed written arguments on legal points, contending that the Commission lacked jurisdiction, that the complaint was bad in law and filed with malafide intentions, and that material facts had been suppressed. It denied the incident of stone particles in the food but expressed willingness to compensate the complainant for the cost of the dental crown.

Findings and Observations

The Commission noted that the complainant had produced the bill of the ordered food, which the hotel admitted he had purchased on the said date. A minor discrepancy in the name of the dish mentioned in the complaint and the bill was deemed irrelevant. The affidavit of the complainant’s friend corroborated the incident, confirming that the complainant bit into a stone particle in the food and sustained injury. The dental certificate clearly indicated that the crown damage was due to bite impact. The Commission observed that the hotel’s willingness to pay for the crown amounted to an implicit admission that a foreign particle was present in the food.

Referring to precedents, the bench cited K. Damodaran vs Hotel Saraswathi (2007), where a hotel was held liable after a complainant’s tooth was damaged by a stone in food, and KFC vs Pawan Kumar (2012), in which the National Commission held that the presence of foreign objects in food, whether deliberate or accidental, constitutes deficiency in service. The Commission reiterated that service providers in the food industry owe a duty of care to ensure food safety, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma & Ors. vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre [(2010) 3 SCC 480].

The bench found that the incident of a stone-like particle in the complainant’s food was proved, and that this was the most probable cause of the crown damage. However, it held that the additional dental treatments claimed in 2024 were not established to be connected with the earlier incident.

Verdict

Holding the hotel guilty of deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. The hotel was directed to pay:

• ₹16,000 towards the cost of tooth treatment, with 6% p.a. interest from 1 October 2022 until payment,

• ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and

• ₹5,000 towards legal expenses.

Also Read: NCLAT Dismisses Appeal by Suspended Directors; Says ₹5.5 Crore Investment Makes Claim of Ignorance of CIRP Unbelievable

The remaining claims of the complainant were rejected. The order was to be complied with within 45 days.

Appearance

For the Complainant: Kaushik Lodh, Adv Siddharth Patil (Advocate) 

For the Opposite Party: Nemo

Cause Title: Kaushik Lodh V. Sukh Sagar Hotels Pvt Ltd

Case No: Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/483/CC/285/2022

Coram: Pradeep G. Kadu [President], Gauri M. Kapse [Member]