Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A duty of care is owed to the guests by a hotel which provides a swimming pool. The Supreme Court directed the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. to pay Rs.62,50,000, to the family of a man who died as drowned in the swimming pool at Hotel Samudra at Kovalam.
Satyendra Pal Singh died while drowning in the pool at the Hotel Samudra, while on a family holiday. He suddenly became unconscious and sank into the pool while he was swimming. The incident was witnessed by a foreigner who jumped into the pool to save him. After being taken out, though he was taken to the hospital, the death occurred.
His spouse approached the consumer forum against KTDC. The NCDRC held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the management of the hotel, observing that the lifeguard on duty had also been assigned the task of being a Bartender.
His spouse approached the Consumer Forum against KTDC. The NCDRC observed that the lifeguard on duty had also been assigned the job of being a Bartender. Hence, it was held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the management of the hotel.
The same rationale was agreed upon by the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Guptain the appeal. The bench observed:
"The duty of care arises from the fact that unless the pool is properly maintained and supervised by trained personnel, it is likely to become a potential source of hazard and danger. Every guest who enters the pool may not have the same level of proficiency as a swimmer. The management of the hotel can reasonably foresee the consequence which may arise if the pool and its facilities are not properly maintained. The observance of safety requires good physical facilities but in addition, human supervision over those who use the pool."
The court observed that there was a clear deviation from the duty of care as the life guard was designated to perform the duties of a Bartender.
"Mixing drinks does not augur well in preserving the safety of swimmers. The appellant could have reasonably foreseen that there could be potential harm caused by the absence of a dedicated lifeguard. The imposition of such a duty upon the appellant can be considered to be just, fair and reasonable. The failure to satisfy this duty of care would amount to a deficiency of service on the part of the hotel management."
The National Institute of Water Sports in the Ministry of Tourism of the Government of India have prescribed safety norms for water sports casting an obligation to appoint a lifeguard for the pool upon the person or entity providing a swimming pool in a hotel. No other duties are to be assigned to the life guard which would distract them from their duty as a life guard.
86540
103860
630
114
59824