Why 23-year consumer battle over ‘expired dates’ just collapsed because of single German phrase

The hospitalisation claimed by the complainant consumer could not be proved by him by production of any documents for medical treatment, said the NCDRC. (Image enhanced by using AI)

Origin, decision

• A Chennai outlet moved against the 2014 verdict of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which awarded Rs 2 lakh as compensation for injury to the public at large (to be paid to a cancer institute).
• The consumer alleged that he ate 8 to 10 expired dates leading to the deterioration of his health and hospitalisation for a couple of days.
• On June 9, 2014, the state commission also directed to pay Rs 38,653 towards medical expenses, Rs 20,000 for mental agony, and litigation costs to the consumer, a software professional.
• The supermarket challenged this order before the NCDRC, which stayed its operation on August 27, 2014, subject to a deposit of Rs 1 lakh.
• While setting aside the 2014 order against the supermarket, a refund of the deposited amount with interest was ordered.

Key findings

• The period of expiry defines a perishable limit, and the German word for the termination of such a time period is “Abgelaugfen”.
• Collin’s dictionary indicated that the period of expiry or end of time is represented by the German word.
• The phrase used and involved in the present case — “Mindestens Haltar Bis” — as endorsed on the sample depicts the shelf life.
• An inference can be drawn that the indication of the date is to depict “best before” as the duration period.
• Thus, the written instructions do not amount to an instruction per se about the date of expiry.
• There were no instructions in German indicating the date of expiry, as the same appears to be “used best before” or “at least durable till” (Mindestens+ at least; Haltbar+ durable; Bis+ Till).
• Meaning assigned to these words by the public analyst as synonyms to the date of expiry is therefore incorrect.
• The conclusion drawn by the state consumer commission suffers from the same infirmity.
• The attempt to give the meaning of expiry is not in conformity with the German language , reflecting its true intent.
• The consequences alleged by the consumer could not be proved by him by production of any documents regarding his hospitalisation in the Apollo Hospital, Chennai and spending money for his treatment.
• There is no material either produced or even discussed regarding the actual treatment of the complainant, which he alleges to have undertaken at the hospital.
• No supporting material has been brought forth to demonstrate that there was any pathological or any other examination to confirm the cause of the gastroenteritis trouble due to the consumption of dates.
• The probable diagnosis, its confirmation or any such material in the shape of a medical report is not available.
• Cannot be assumed that the consequence of hospitalisation was only on account of consumption of the dates.
• There is nothing on record to indicate that they were samples of the same batch and were taken from the same packet or had been preserved or sealed without exposure.
• The consumer, who actually consumed 8 to 10 of the dates, has nowhere stated that he saw any insects or smelled any unusual odour while consuming the dates.
• Little surprising that the complainant consumed about 10 dates, maybe one after the other on the same day, but he did not notice any odour either.
• He failed to notice the presence of insects even though the date of consumption was more than a month after the purchase.
• It does not look probable that the consumer would have missed the smell of any odour or the presence of any insects when he consumed quite several dates on May 14, 2003, which is the date stated by him in the complaint.
• A sharp distinction between the contents as reported that were found in the samples sent.
• The report dated June 25, 2003, states the presence of insects whereas the report dated July 14, 2003 only mentions a fermenting odour.
• The reports state that the samples were not fit for human consumption.
• There is no finding in the reports that the said samples received were from the same batch or packets that had been purchased on April 8, 2003 and were of the same lot which has been consumed by the consumer.
• Secondly, one of the reports indicates the presence of insects whereas the other report indicates bad odour.
• This is an inconsistency even though the reports state the contents to be unfit for the consumer.

2003 incident: purchase, consumption, illness

• The dispute traces back to April 8, 2003, when the complainant, a Chennai-based software professional, purchased “Masafatl wet dates” from a local outlet- Food World Supermarkets Limited.
• According to the complaint, he consumed more than a month later, on May 14, 2003, when he ate eight to ten pieces in one sitting.
• Later that day, he allegedly developed severe stomach pain, breathing difficulty and gastritis, leading to hospitalisation at a private hospital in Chennai from May 14 to 16, 2003.
• While recovering, the complainant claimed to have inspected the packaging and discovered that the product bore information printed in German, allegedly showing that the dates had expired in February 2002, more than a year before purchase.

Language claim: German training, alleged concealment

• A key point of the complaint was the consumer’s claim that he could decode the foreign-language label.
• He claimed familiarity with German due to professional training in Germany during 1993-94, and alleged that the supermarket had pasted a fresh label declaring a later shelf life of April 2004, suppressing the true expiry date.
• The German phrase “Mindestens haltbar bis Februar 2002” was interpreted by the complainant as meaning that the dates were unfit for consumption after February 2002.
• This linguistic claim later proved to be the central fault line of the entire case.

Food testing: two Reports, two narratives

• To support the allegations, two food analysis reports were procured in mid-2003.
• On June 25, 2003, the public analyst of the Chennai corporation reported the presence of live insects and concluded that the sample was unfit for human consumption.
• On July 14, 2003, the government analyst at the King Institute, Guindy, reported a fermented odour and similarly declared the sample unfit.
• However, as the NCDRC later noted, neither report established that the samples tested were from the same packet or batch consumed by the complainant.
• There was no explanation regarding how the dates were stored between purchase and consumption, or how the samples were preserved before testing.
• More significantly, both reports were obtained without the involvement or notice to the retailer, a procedural lapse that would ultimately prove fatal to the complaint.