A consumer commission in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district has directed a cafe proprietor and manager to pay Rs 96,393 to a customer who contracted a Salmonella infection after consuming a grilled chicken dish at the outlet.
The ruling, issued by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission President George Baby and member Nishad Thankappa, requires the cafe management to jointly clear the payout within 30 days. Should the establishment fail to make the payment within the stipulated timeframe, the total sum will accrue interest at an annual rate of 10 percent.
The awarded compensation includes Rs 36,393 to cover the victim’s hospital treatment expenses, Rs 50,000 in compensation for suffering, and Rs 10,000 toward litigation costs.
Illness Following Meal
The complainant reported that she and her sister ate Alfaham, a grilled chicken dish, at the cafe on October 21, 2025. Upon sensing an unusual taste in the food, they informed the cafe management, who allegedly refused to accept their complaint.
Following the meal, the woman suffered from abdominal pain, vomiting, and related health issues. After an initial consultation with a doctor, she was admitted to a hospital for formal medical treatment.
Her hospital discharge summary confirmed a diagnosis of a Salmonella infection. The bacterial disease infects the intestinal tract and is commonly contracted by consuming contaminated or undercooked food, causing symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Defense Rejected by Panel
The complainant stated that after incurring Rs 36,393 in medical bills, her son approached the cafe management seeking reimbursement. However, the cafe representatives allegedly ridiculed him and turned down the request.
During the commission’s proceedings, the cafe’s proprietor denied all allegations, asserting that the food prepared and served was of sound quality. The owner presented a defense stating that more than 100 customers had consumed the same chicken dish on that date without any reported illness.
The commission dismissed the proprietor’s argument, noting that the defense was unable to disprove the findings recorded in the official hospital discharge summary. Determining that the treatment directly followed the consumption of food from the eatery, the panel held the business liable for compensating the complainant.
