Death By Drowning In Swimming Pool, The State Consumer Commission Directs The Club To Pay 35 Lakhs Compensation

While observing that the swimming pool facility was dangerous and no actual lifeguard was present, the commission found the Aquatic Club liable for deficiency in services and ruled that the drowning of the deceased in the swimming pool was a direct consequence of the negligence on their part.

Brief Facts

The complainant, who was working for Emirates Airlines in Dubai, lost his elder son Abhijith. On March 10, 2013, the deceased along with his friends, visited the Aquatics Club in Trissur, where he drowned in the swimming pool lacking proper safeguards. He was taken to a hospital but could not be saved. As a result, the complainant imputed negligence upon the club, alleging the absence of lifeguards and safety measures. Seeking Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) in compensation, he accused the club of "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practices".

To support his arguments, the counsel for the complainant also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court, in Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation vs. Deepti Singh & Others (2019), where a man had drowned in a hotel pool due to sudden unconsciousness. The hotel's life guard, also working as a bartender, was unable to provide prompt assistance. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that this dual role for the life guard was against safety guidelines. The court found the hotel liable for deficient service due to failure in adhering to safety protocols.

Arguments of the Aquatic Club

The complaint was contested by the Club owners. They contended that the complaint lacked validity under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, specifying that their club was a private, non-profit entity designed solely for its members. It was also highlighted that, as the complainant's son was present as a guest at the invitation of a member, the hosting member had the responsibility for the guest's conduct or any other ensuing liabilities. According to the Club owners, they were not the service providers to the complainant’s son. They argued that the deceased, classified as a guest, did not meet the criteria for a "consumer" (Section 2(d) of the Act) within the context of the Consumer Protection Act, because "he had not hired any services for a consideration".

Observations of the Commission

While relying on the post-mortem report which confirmed that the death of the complainant’s son was undisputedly caused due to drowning, the State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint holding the club owners liable. The commission ruled that despite the guest's non-membership, a duty of care was owed by the club to anyone permitted to use its facilities (even if the individual was not a formal member of the club). The absence of proper safety measures, including a trained lifeguard, was found to be a breach of this duty.

Consequently, the Commission held the Aquatic Club liable to compensate the complainant for his son's death and directed them to pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) for the loss of his son and the pain and sufferings caused to him by such loss, along with an additional Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as reimbursement for litigation expenses. It directed that the decision be complied with within one month from the receipt of its official copy; failure of which would result in Aquatic Club being obligated to pay the specified amounts along with 9% annual interest.

Case Title: S. Venugopal vs. Aquatic Club

Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Suresh Kumar C.R., Advocate

Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. P. Raj Mohan, Advocate