In the first instance, judge Roberto Coutinho Borba, from the 1st Civil Malaysia Number Data Court of the District of Alvorada, judged the compensation action proposed by the consumer to be valid. He understood that the supplier and manufacturer must respond civilly for defective products, whether they are at fault or not, as provided in article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code (Law 8,078/90). He also indicated that a health surveillance report from the RS Health Department found the presence of numerous fragments of insects, live larvae and beetle excrement (insect pest of stored grains) in the packaging.
"Taking into account the sale of a product with an insect inside, the accident in the consumer relationship is evident. The plaintiff was exposed to a risk situation, experiencing obvious embarrassment, due to the logical disgust caused to her by the failure to provide the service" , recorded in the sentence. No accident of consumption The rapporteur of the appeal in the court, judge Eugênio Facchini Neto, said that the simple finding of a foreign body in the contents of the packaging is not enough to cause psychological harm. In this case, the author would only be entitled to exchange the product or refund the amount paid for the merchandise, as provided for in article 18 of the CDC.