Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 420
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Sudhir Kumar Jain, J
Cryobanks International India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sonika Goyal – Respondent
RP NO. 57 OF 2017 | RP NO. 58 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Mr. Kirttin Sengupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Sharma
The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence where concurrent findings of fact have been established by lower consumer fora.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of - Limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law or acted with material irregularity - Concurrent findings of lower forums regarding deficiency in service cannot be re-appreciated by National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. (Para 14)
(B) Deficiency In Service - Collection of Cord Blood Stem Cells - Failure of service provider to collect cord blood despite timely intimation - Expert technical service provider failing to reach site in time when informed of impending delivery - Held, such failure constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The respondents enrolled with the petitioner for a cord blood stem cell storage program. Despite timely communication by the respondents to the petitioner's representatives regarding the delivery of their child, the petitioner failed to collect the cord blood sample. This deprived the infant of potential future medical benefits. The District Forum awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, which the State Commission enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000.
Findings of Court:
The National Commission found that the lower forums correctly concluded that the petitioner failed to provide timely service despite receiving adequate notice. Since the concurrent findings were based on evidence, there was no material irregularity to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the service provider was deficient in failing to collect umbilical cord stem cells and whether the compensation awarded was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: When a service provider acts professionally but fails to perform essential services despite receiving timely intimation, they are held liable for deficiency in service. Concurrent findings of fact by lower consumer fora will not be disturbed under revisional jurisdiction unless there is a clear jurisdictional error.
Result: Revision petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the contractual obligations and the alleged breach of service regarding cord blood collection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of findings by district forum and state commission regarding deficiency in service. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties during the revision petition stage. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. analysis of evidence affirming liability for deficiency in service. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. limitations of revisional jurisdiction and final disposal of cases. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
1. The relevant facts are that Sonika Goyal/ the complainant no.1 / the respondent no.1 is wife of Rakesh Goyal/the complainant no. 2 /the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondents). The respondent no 1 was pregnant and her expected date of delivery was 28.3.2013. The respondents decided to enroll with latest scheme Private Family Cord Blood and/or Umbilical Cord Stem Cells storage program of the opposite party/the petitioner/ Cryobanks International India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”). The petitioner under scheme issued an agreement form as well as enrollment & consent form and also provided educational material under SAR no. 4277 dated 04.03.2013 after receipt of Rs. 5000/- from the respondents. The petitioner allotted Kit No. 41795-K to the respondents through representative Pretender Singh. It was duty of the petitioner to collect cord blood/or umbilical cord stem cells of newly born baby of the respondents at the time of delivery. The respondent no 1 on 22.03.2013 at about 10.30 pm admitted to hospital due to labour pain. The delivery was scheduled at about 1.30 am. The petitioner was required to send massage to representative for collection of cord blood and/or umbilical cord stem cell of newly born baby. The respondent no 2 sent intimation with complete particulars including address of the hospital and due date of delivery through mobile to the representative Pretender Singh on his mobile and also informed technician of the petitioner namely Gurjant Singh for necessary action for collecting the cord blood and/or umbilical cord stem cells of newly born baby at the time of delivery. The respondent no 1 at about 1.42 am gave birth to a female child. The representative of the petitioner did not come to collect the cord blood and/or umbilical cord stem cells of newly born baby which was required to be collected. There was as such deficiency in service on part of the petitioner. The newly born child was deprived of benefit of latest medical technique by which 80 diseases could be treated. The respondents also served a legal notice to the petitioner and the petitioner in reply to the notice admitted deficiency in service which was not intentional but in circumstantial conditions. The respondents no. 1 and 2 being aggrieved jointly filed present consumer complaint bearing C.C. No. 154 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) titled as Sonika Goyal and another V Cyrobanks International India Private Limited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (hereafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) seeking the reliefs regarding their entitlement to receive compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental tension, physical harassment and also for future medical precautions to protect the health of newly born baby on account of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner to contest the complaint has filed written version wherein raised legal objections. The complaint is based on false, frivolous, distorted and mala fide facts. The respondents have concealed material facts. The respondents have not filed basic agreement signed by them containing obligations of the parties. The respondents on 4.3.2013 approached the petitioner for availing the services in respect of the delivery of their child expected in the month of March, 2013.
