w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat v/s Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- K N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PLC026841

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049964

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A INTERNATIONAL LTD [Active] CIN = U15122DL1995PLC068186

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993WB1983PLC080793

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016929

Company & Directors' Information:- T K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101OR1982PLC001092

Company & Directors' Information:- N R INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999WB1991PLC051738

Company & Directors' Information:- K J INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15142PB1993PLC011274

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1996PLC076327

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB1994PTC063228

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC157013

Company & Directors' Information:- R S C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17124RJ1993PLC007136

Company & Directors' Information:- J C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PLC089037

Company & Directors' Information:- M T L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24219UP2001PTC025965

Company & Directors' Information:- T C N S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC080096

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120770

Company & Directors' Information:- G N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC110766

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1994PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- M K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC083430

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U08011BR1993PLC005446

Company & Directors' Information:- V. G. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC162540

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24132DL1996PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2007PLC159452

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2012PTC234047

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36109RJ2007PTC024176

Company & Directors' Information:- K A I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100OR2007PTC009647

Company & Directors' Information:- C G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC097577

Company & Directors' Information:- O LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399PN2013PTC146147

Company & Directors' Information:- K C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060402

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130MH1997PTC107943

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC056158

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036047

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1995PTC072210

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1987PLC028571

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC085878

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2008PTC177405

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300PB2014PTC038889

Company & Directors' Information:- S F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2000PTC023654

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066267

Company & Directors' Information:- C K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045625

Company & Directors' Information:- L A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033683

Company & Directors' Information:- H R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899UP1993PTC057665

Company & Directors' Information:- K P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24110GJ2007PTC050026

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1997PTC109647

Company & Directors' Information:- N N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL1999PTC099094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC243060

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2010PTC228539

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055562

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013231

Company & Directors' Information:- D N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911TN1996PLC034205

Company & Directors' Information:- M. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC164267

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013580

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL1992PTC047657

Company & Directors' Information:- H D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060720

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2012PTC049338

Company & Directors' Information:- J & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC238392

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2008PTC172188

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1965PTC003091

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1991PTC050829

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048736

Company & Directors' Information:- S G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC086547

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412WB1999PTC089316

Company & Directors' Information:- V A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL2000PTC104712

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC169438

Company & Directors' Information:- N H B INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U67190MH1997PTC107387

Company & Directors' Information:- P D K INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC056468

Company & Directors' Information:- G. S. C. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH1994PTC080380

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060818

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC020046

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2012PTC234492

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC089876

Company & Directors' Information:- A P J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2010PTC040304

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2011PTC043952

Company & Directors' Information:- A & F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00265KA1995PTC018998

Company & Directors' Information:- M E C INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33111GJ1963PTC082423

Company & Directors' Information:- J K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100MH2004PTC144492

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2010PTC039954

Company & Directors' Information:- B L S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UR2010PTC033210

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INTERNATIONAL LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101WB1993PLC059515

Company & Directors' Information:- P Y INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51102RJ1995PTC010133

Company & Directors' Information:- R C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1991PLC012477

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1995PTC019936

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC105735

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- K K M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17110MH1995PTC089836

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21098MH2010PTC210735

Company & Directors' Information:- J R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909TN2002PTC048744

Company & Directors' Information:- L S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC193390

Company & Directors' Information:- M B INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52190DL2001PTC110572

Company & Directors' Information:- O K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC077152

Company & Directors' Information:- B B C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25209WB1984PTC037383

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2001PTC134345

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101TN1992PTC022507

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- J S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027604

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034784

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51228MH1955PTC009483

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB1982PTC004926

Company & Directors' Information:- L & P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2016PTC292025

Company & Directors' Information:- R B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2012PTC243998

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U24100OR1993PTC003244

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31909HP1984PTC005785

Company & Directors' Information:- E C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1982PTC013146

Company & Directors' Information:- S R A INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010389

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51312DL1977PTC008583

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012389

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U12300MH1959PTC011285

Company & Directors' Information:- O P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PB2013PTC037499

Company & Directors' Information:- J & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900PB2013PTC037302

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900RJ2012PTC040431

Company & Directors' Information:- D & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262713

Company & Directors' Information:- R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204UP2016PTC076344

Company & Directors' Information:- V P S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030UP2014PTC066242

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102DL2012PTC240197

Company & Directors' Information:- S R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U20296AP2013PTC085533

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025007

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109UR1935PTC000663

Company & Directors' Information:- D C M INTERNATIONAL LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC004208

    Consumer Case No. 95 of 2018

    Decided On, 13 March 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Pashupati Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ritesh Khare, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: V.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Sumit Roy, Varun Pandey, Pawas Kulshrestha, Advocates.



Judgment Text


The use of stem cells in the treatment of several diseases such as Thalassemia, Leukaemia, Lymphoma and auto-immune disorders, is being increasingly recognized. Bone-Marrow transplantation is being currently used for treatment of several diseases, including certain malignancies and genetic blood disorders. If it is not possible to get bone marrow donor from a family member, attempt is made to find a suitably HLA matched donor for the patients needing stem cells transplant. It is not always possible to find suitable donors. Moreover, GVHD (Graft- Versus-Host-Disease) occurs in majority of bone-marrows coming from outside the family of the patient. The cord blood which is the left over blood in the umbilical cord and placenta after the birth of a child, is seen as comparable to the bone-marrow in terms of its utility in stem cell transplantation and in fact offers a number of advantages over the bone-marrow. It has also been found that the related samples instead of unrelated samples dramatically increase the survival rate for the patients.

Several parents, particularly those who are well-educated are now keen to store the stem cells of their child at the time of his birth so that the said cells can be stored in a stem cell bank and used in case of an unexpected illness of the child, requiring stem cell transplant in future. Umbilical cord blood therefore is now being recognised as a rich source of blood forming stem cells which, if required, can be used not only to treat dreaded diseases such as blood and bone-marrow cancer but also in regenerative medicines. Even the gelatine tissue in the cord is considered to be a rich source of Mesenchymal stem cells. The stem cells have also been shown to be able to repair damaged heart and nervous tissue besides, treating Type I diabetes and children born with Neurological defects.

2. For the purpose of collecting the cord blood and cord tissue, a sample of the blood is taken immediately after the birth of the child, once the placenta and the umbilical cord are safely delivered. The shorter the time between the birth of the child and cryo-preserver, the better it is for the quality of the cord blood and tissue. Once the stem cells are frozen and are stored in a bank, they can remain stored for upto 25 years, provided that they have been suitably processed and stored. It is therefore, necessary to take the sample of the blood and the cord without any delay once the child is born and an un-expectable delay in drawing such samples is likely to render the sample incapable of being analysed and stored for future.

3. The opposite party, namely Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in collection and preservation of the umbilical cord blood and tissue of a baby and as per the Brochure issued by the opposite party, the collection of umbilical cord stem cell can be done only at the time of birth. On the parents signing up with the opposite party for such collection and preservation, a collection kit is provided to them with necessary tools and instruments in sterile condition for the collection of the umbilical cord blood, cord tissue and maternal blood samples. It is also stated in the Brochure issued by the opposite party that the umbilical cord blood and maternal blood sample are collected just after child birth (emphasis supplied). The sample is transported to the laboratory of the opposite party within 48 hours and the opposite party claims to have enabled online tracking of the sample right from the time it leaves the hospital, in order to allow the parents to track the journey of the stem cells of the baby, right from the umbilical cord, to the cryo-presever. In the laboratory the sample is subjected to various tests to check for the presence of the infectious diseases and also to assess the cell counts, viability and sterility. Several tests on the cord blood are performed. The processing in the laboratory of the opposite party involves separating the stem cells form the cord blood and cord tissue samples. The tissue is minced into small pieces and is incubated. After 28 days, the sample is spun to separate the umbilical cord tissue stem cells. A portion of the native umbilical cord tissue is processed so that future techniques for isolation can be deployed. The harvested stem cells are mixed with cryo-preservation solution for retaining viability during storage and are then transferred to specially designed cryo-bags, in smaller segments, in the form of tubes. The smaller segments are meant for sampling, testing for quality control and future testing. A preservation certificate indicating the cell count and the viability of the stem cells at the time of preservation is sent to the parents for their record.

4. The opposite party claims to have largest network in India and collaboration with Cryo Cell International, which is a private stem cell bank.

5. Should the stored stem cell not be viable on retrieval, the OP provides a guarantee of Rs.20,00,000/- for the baby, siblings and parents, which can be utilized to purchase suitable matching stem cells from any public stem cell bank.

6. The complainant, who is a Doctor by profession was keen to preserve the umbilical stem cells of the child his wife was expecting to deliver and he executed an agreement with the opposite party on 21.9.2016, where-under umbilical cord, blood tissue and maternal blood samples of his wife were to be collected by the Gynaecologist / medical professional / midwife who was to assist in delivering the child. A collection kit was provided to the complainant, which was to be given to the concerned doctor. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the agreement, the complainant was to arrange for collection, preparation and labelling of the maternal blood and umbilical cord for delivery to the laboratory of the opposite party. Clause 8.3 of the agreement however, provided that at the request of the client (the complainant in this case), the opposite party would arrange and pay for the doctor for the collection of the maternal blood and umbilical cord, provided reasonable time for the purpose was given to the opposite party.

7. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that as per the Standard Operative Procedure explained to the complainant, he was to inform the opposite party on its toll free number, 12 hours before the expected time of delivery. The opposite party was to provide the contact details of its employee who had to collect the samples from the place where the expecting mother would be at that time. The complainant contacted the opposite party at 7.30 pm on 21.10.2016 and provided the requisite details, including the date and time of expected delivery as well as the name of the doctor and the hospital. He was assured that a paramedic namely Imran Khan will arrive before time to collect the stem cell. However, despite advance intimation of the expected time of delivery having been given to the opposite party, namely Mr. Imran Khan nor any other employee / representative of the opposite party was present in the hospital at the time the child was delivered at 9-53 a.m. on 22.10.2016. When the complainant contacted Mr. Imran Khan, he told the complainant that the job had not been assigned to him. On repeated calls, an employee of the opposite party finally turned up at the hospital but by that time, the umbilical cord had already been discarded and therefore stem cell preservation was impossible. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to him by not collecting the stem cells of his newly born child, the complainant is before this Commission seeking compensation quantified at Rs.1.5 crores, besides refund of amount of Rs.55,990/- which he had paid to the opposite party.

8. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the agreement with the complainant as well as the payment received from him. It is stated in the written version that as per Clause 3.1 of the agreement, it was for the complainant to arrange for the collection of the maternal blood and umbilical cord. It is further alleged that the child of the complainant was born between 9.15 am to 9.30 am on 22.10.2016 and the cord tissue was collected at about 9.40 am to 10.00 a.m. on the same day by the paramedic arranged by the opposite party on the request of the complainant at 10.00 am. A confirmation message as well as an email was then sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 24.10.2016. Thus, according to the opposite party, the paramedic had not only reached the hospital in time but he had also collected the sample. It is also stated in the written version that the paramedic had collected umbilical tissue sample secured by the attending doctor in the kit box at about 10.00 a.m. on 22.10.2016 and booked the kit for transit at about 4.00 pm on the same day. The sample was shipped from Delhi to Chennai in the evening of 23.10.2016 and reached Chennai Facility of the opposite party at 00.55 a.m. on 24.10.2016, within 40 hours of the collection of the sample. It is also alleged that unfortunately, the cord tissue sample showed signs of no growth and intimation in this regard was given to the complainant on 10.3.2017.

9. Though, in terms of Clause 3.1 of the agreement it was for the complainant to provide the kit to the doctor and arrange for collection, preparation and labelling of the maternal blood and umbilical cord, Clause 8.3 of the said agreement also provided for the opposite party arranging for the collection of the maternal blood and umbilical cord, if so requested by the complainant. This is not the case of the opposite party that advance intimation of the expected delivery of the child was not given to it by the complainant and therefore it did not get reasonable time to arrange for the collection of the maternal blood and umbilical cord. A perusal of the message sent by the opposite party to the complainant on his phone confirms that the opposite party was contacted in the evening of 21.10.2016 and the complainant was informed that Mr. Imran Khan would be collecting the said samples. Mobile number of Mr. Imran Khan was also sent to the complainant through the said message. Therefore, the opposite party had undertaken the responsibility to collect the samples, on the request of the complainant in terms of Clause 8.3 of the agreement executed between the parties, by deputing Mr. Imran Khan for the said purpose. Therefore, if Mr. Imran Khan did not collect the sample or did not collect the same in time, it would be an act of deficiency in rendering services to the complainant and being the service provider, the opposite party would be responsible for the said deficiency.

10. The opposite party has not filed any affidavit of Mr. Imran Khan to prove that the sample was actually collected by him as also to prove the time the sample was allegedly collected by him. No attempt was made by the opposite party to summon Mr. Imran Khan as a witness through the process of this Commission. In my opinion, considering the denial by the complainant, it was obligatory for the opposite party to produce Mr. Imran Khan as a witness or to file his affidavit to prove the alleged collection as well as time the sample was collected by him. The learned senior counsel for the opposite party has drawn my attention to the messages and emails purporting to be sent to the complainant and acknowledging the receipt of the samples. Attention is also drawn to the email sent to the complainant on December 12, 2016 whereby he was informed that the sample was still in process and the final conclusion could be derived only after completion of the process. The attention was also drawn to the subsequent email of the opposite party dated 10.3.2017 whereby the complainant was informed that the isolation and expansion of the stem cells was unsuccessful primarily due to no growth. Relying upon the aforesaid messages and emails, it was contended by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party that had the samples not been actually taken, the complainant in the normal course of human conduct would immediately have controverted the above referred messages and emails and would have written to the opposite party that no sample had actually been collected on the birth of his child. However, I need no go into the question as to whether the sample was actually collected or not since there is no credible evidence to prove that the sample was collected soon after the birth of the child. It is stated in the Brochure of the opposite party itself that the umbilical cord blood and maternal blood sample are collected just after child birth (emphasis supplied). The Brochure issued by the opposite party itself shows that the collection of the stem cell can be done only at the time the child is born. If the sample is not collected soon after the birth of the child, it is likely to show no growth and will not serve the purpose for which the sample is obtained. In fact, this is not the case even of the opposite party that the sample could be collected even hours and hours after the birth of the child. Though, the opposite party has placed on record the photocopy of what purports to be a Purple Card filled by the paramedic at the time the sample was allegedly collected and the said Purple Card does bear the name of the wife of the complainant as well as her CRM number and mobile phone number, it shows that the sample was collected after 9.25 p.m. after placenta delivery. The person who filled this purple card has ticked against the p.m. and not against the a.m. after writing 9.25, against the time of the delivery. Since the sample is shown to have been collected after placenta delivery and the time of delivery is shown to be 9.25 p.m., the sample could not possibly have been collected before 9.25 p.m. on 22.10.2016. Though, it was contended by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party that a mistake was committed by the paramedic when he ticked against p.m. instead of ticking against a.m., the said contention cannot be accepted in the absence of the affidavit of Mr. Imran Khan, paramedic, who allegedly collected the said sample. In fact, this is not even the case of the opposite party in its written version that a mistake had been committed by Mr. Imran Khan, paramedic while filling up the purple card. The paramedic Mr. Imran Khan has not ticked either against a.m. or against p.m. in the column meant for writing the time of sample collection. Again, there is no explanation as to why Paramedic, Mr. Imran Khan did not tick against the a.m. if the sample was collected in the morning of 22.10.2016.

11. Had the sample been collected soon after the birth of the child, the doctor who delivered the child could not have been unaware of it. In fact, it was not possible to draw the samples without the knowledge and permission of the attending doctor unless the sample was taken from an unknown source or it was taken from the umbilical cord of the wife of the complainant after the said cord had been discarded by the doctor. The complainant has filed an affidavit of Dr. Adarsh Bhargava, who delivered the child, in addition to his own affidavit and the affidavit of his wife. The name of Dr. Adarsh Bhargava also finds mention on the purple card filed by the opposite party. In her affidavit Dr. Adarsh Bhargava has clearly stated that neither she had consented nor collected umbilical cord blood and cord tissue. Considering the affidavit of Dr. Adarsh Bhargava and the failure of the opposite party to produce Mr. Imran Khan in the witness box or even file his affidavit by way of evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the sample was not collected soon after the birth of the child, as a result of which the complainant lost a precious opportunity to preserve the stem cells of his child, which could prove to be of a vital use in case the child was to develop an illness, requiring stem cell transplant in future.

12. The next question which arises for consideration is as to what amount, the complainant is entitled as compensation. Though, the complainant has claimed compensation amounting to Rs.1.5 crore, the said claim would far exceed a fair and reasonable compensation. The complainant lost a lifetime opportunity to preserve the stem cells of his child. Had the samples been taken in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

time, it would have been possible to preserve the stem cells of the child and if he, his parents or his sibling, if any, was to need them in future, for the purpose of stem cell transplant, the stem cell so preserved and stored could have helped in saving the life of the child or his biological parents or his siblings. If anyone of them requires stem cell in future, the suitable stem cell may not be available with a private stem cell bank and even if they are available, the said bank may demand charges, which may be beyond the financial capacity of the complainant to pay. As per Clause 8.2 of the agreement, if the child, his biological parents or siblings are diagnosed for any condition treatable by stem cell transplantation using the stored specimen and in the opinion of the transplant physician, the specimen of retrieval does not meet the prevailing viability criterial, the opposite party would provide suitable matching stem cells and if the same is found at any public stem cell bank, failing which it will pay Rs.20.00 lacs to the client. Thus, even the opposite party recognises that the matching stem cells, even if available with a stem cell bank, will cost atleast Rs.20.00 lacs. Since the sample was not collected in time and the stem cell could not be preserved, the opposite party, in my opinion, should pay a compensation amounting to Rs.20.00 lacs to the complainant. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the opposite party Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs as compensation to the complainant within three months form today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till the date of payment. The complainant shall also be entitled to the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) & Another High Court of Delhi
17-09-2020 Rajesh & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 Dr. Rajesh Versus Triloki Raghubani & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 Branch Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Madhya Pradesh & Another Versus Lekhram Avadhiya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Rajesh Versus The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Prithvi Raj & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
07-08-2020 Dr. Rajesh Khoth Versus State of Haryana, through Chief Secretary & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
06-08-2020 Rajesh Shantilal Sayani Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 C.B. Rajesh Versus M.G. Justin & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Rajesh Singh Rana Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 R. Rajesh Versus A.M. Mohammed Jabarullah (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 Nalini Singh Versus Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Gurbax Singh Banga Versus Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2020 M/s. Rajesh Export Limited, Represented by its Chairman Rajesh Mehta Versus Reserve Bank of India & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
21-07-2020 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kajari Gayen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-07-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
02-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Manager (L & HPF), (CG) Versus Dhanya Kumar Jain & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Girijabai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Sajal Kumar Banerjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 Rajesh Ray @ Rajesh Rai Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-06-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Manager, LIC of India & Others Versus Rekha Jain Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
15-06-2020 Manali Malik & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Through its Chief Manager Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Rajesh B. Yemkanmardi & Others Versus Praful J. Padiya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Cry for Life Society, Thrissur, Represented by Its President, E.C. George & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by The Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-06-2020 H.P. Rajesh Versus S.V. Ramachandra & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Vinita Sethi Versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Forest & Wild Life Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Vishalakshi Amma High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
24-04-2020 Rare Metabolics Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Matrix Labs High Court of Delhi
20-04-2020 Liberty Group Limited t/a Liberty Life Versus K & D Telemarketing & Others Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Supreme Court of India
11-04-2020 Rajesh A. Nair Versus The Director General of Police, State Police Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-03-2020 Rajesh Manibhai Patel Versus Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-03-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2020 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Punjab & Others Versus Dalbir Kaur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Ashawati Singh & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation off India, Thrpugh Divisional Manager, Allahabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Rajesh T. Shah & Others Versus The Tax Recovery Officer City - II Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rajesh Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 M/s. Nezone Pipes & Structures, Through its authorized person Rajesh Chetri Versus The State of Manipur through the Commissioner/ Secretary, Manipur & Another High Court of Manipur
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
03-03-2020 Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Additional Secretary(Legal), New Delhi Versus Raj Vilas Dongre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-03-2020 Mirapakayala Rajesh Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Others Versus Chittipolu Uma Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Mukesh Poonamchand Shah Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited Through Its Director Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through its Manager (L & HPF) Versus Meera Mehbubani Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Ganpati Timber Store, By Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Khadariya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-02-2020 HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gangineni Vasundhara National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Union of India through the Executive Engineer (C), Postal Civil Division, V/S Recon A proprietary concern of Rajesh Yadav High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Rajesh Ranka Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal