Consumer Court Orders Compensation to Chandigarh Woman After Worms, Insects Found in Her Dog Food

A local pet owner successfully sued a major manufacturer after discovering contaminated treats, prompting a ruling on corporate accountability in the pet care sector.

For pet owners, the health and safety of their companions is paramount, but a routine purchase turned into a distressing ordeal for a Chandigarh woman. Himani Jamwal, a local resident, found herself at the center of a legal battle against Drools Pet Food Private Limited after discovering that a packet of 'Drools Absolute Calcium (sausages)'—purchased for her Labrador—was infested with live worms and insects.

The incident, which took place in April 2023, prompted Jamwal to pursue a complaint through the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Upon opening the package, she documented the state of the product using photographs and videos, providing clear evidence that the food was compromised. Despite her attempts to seek redressal directly from the company, she was met with resistance, leading her to formalize the grievance through the legal system.

Company’s Defense Dismissed

During the proceedings, the company attempted to shift the blame onto the consumer. Drools Pet Food Private Limited argued that the product’s integrity relies on specific storage conditions, specifically a "cool and dry place." They claimed that Jamwal’s failure to adhere to these storage guidelines likely led to the infestation.

However, the Commission remained unconvinced by these assertions. In its order dated June 2, the court observed that the company offered no evidence to substantiate the claim that the woman had mishandled the product. Terming the company’s argument as "totally speculative," the bench ruled that such defenses could not be relied upon to evade liability for a contaminated product.

Ruling and Legal Precedent

The court ultimately held the company liable for unfair trade practices and poor service. The commission ordered a full refund of Rs 540—the original cost of the product—along with 6% annual interest calculated from the date of purchase. Additionally, the company was directed to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to cover litigation expenses.

While the company had also argued that Jamwal failed to produce a veterinary prescription linking the food to a specific illness in her dog, the court’s decision focused on the fundamental breach of consumer trust and the sale of sub-standard goods. This ruling serves as a stark reminder to manufacturers that maintaining supply chain integrity is a legal obligation, not merely a brand preference, and that consumers are increasingly willing to hold large corporations accountable for the quality of pet products.