National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Cryobanks International India Pvt. ... vs Sonika Goyal & Anr. on 13 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 57 OF 2017
(Against the Order dated 22.09.2016 passed in Appeal No. 1354 of 2013 by
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab)
Cryobanks International India Private Limited
(now known as Cryoviva Bitoech Private Limited)
Registered Office at: F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase 1, Delhi-110020
Through Authorized Representative
Petitioner
V
1. Sonika Goyal w/o Rakesh Goyal
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Hansraj
Both residents of
Marasiyan Wali Gali, Jawahrke Road
Mansa District Mansa
Punjab
...Respondents
AND
REVISION PETITION NO. 58 OF 2017
(Against the Order dated 22.09.2016 in Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab)
Cryobanks International India Private Limited
(now known as Cryoviva Bitoech Private Limited)
Registered Office at: F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase 1, Delhi-110020
Through Authorized Representative
Petitioner
V
1. Sonika Goyal w/o Rakesh Goyal
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Hansraj
Both residents of
Marasiyan Wali Gali, Jawahrke Road
Mansa District Mansa
Punjab
REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 1
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDIG MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Mahajan Advocate with
Mr. Kirttin Sengupta, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate (V.C.)
Pronounced on: 13th April 2026
JUDGMENT
DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
1. The relevant facts are that Sonika Goya!/ the complainant no.l / the respondent no.l 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 bom 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 bom baby. The respondent no 2 sent intimation with complete particulars including address of the hospital and due REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 2 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 bom 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 bom baby which was required to be collected. There was as such deficiency in service on part of the petitioner. The newly bom 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 bom 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. The respondent no 1 after discussion and being satisfied with the REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 3 obligations and benefits of the storage of the stem cells entered into an agreement dated 4.3.2013 and was handed over agreement dated 4.3.2013; collection Kit bearing No.41795-K and spot acknowledgment report dated 4.3.2013 showing kit No.41795-K. The spot acknowledgement report dated 04.03.2013 showing Kit No. 41795- was duly signed by the respondent no 2 in token of its acceptance as kit was containing instructions/standard operating procedures for collection of cord blood by the physician who has to conduct the delivery. The respondents were required to pay Rs.85,000/- (Rs.5000/- registration charges+Rs.31500/- as processing charges+Rs.48500/- as storage charges) but they only paid Rs.5,000/-. The respondent no 2 in the night of 22.3.2013 at about 12.15 am called Preetinder Singh, employee of the petitioner who was residing at Bhatinda and was asked for collection of sample. Preetinder Singh although was not bound to collect the cord blood sample but as a goodwill gesture directed Gurjant Singh, an authorized representative of the petitioner based at Bathinda to collect cord blood sample from Mansa which was about 65 km away from Bathinda. Gurjant Singh left for Mansa at 12.50 am but he at about 1.20 am received a call from the respondent no. 2 who informed that delivery has already taken place and now there is no need for him to come to Mansa. Gurjant Singh also requested the respondent no. 2 to get contact him with treating doctor of the respondent no 1 but the respondent no 2 refused to this request and also did not pick up his call despite calling 2-3 times. The respondents willfully and intentionally did not want to get collection of the sample of cord blood. The respondents were solely the responsible as per Clause 4 and 5 of the agreement dated 4.3.2013 to take necessary action to collect sample through concerned physician who was to perform delivery and handover the collected cord blood sample to the petitioner for processing and storage of the ample. The petitioner cannot be held liable for deficiency and negligence in its services. The petitioner replied letter dated 24.5.2013 sent by the respondents vide letter dated 3.6.2013. The petitioner in reply stated that the respondents REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 4 informed the petitioner at late hours and the time gap between the intimation and the alleged time of delivery was not enough for the representative to reach Mansa in time. The collection of cord blood sample is dependent on delivery condition and also the intimation of time as per terms of the agreement. The responsibility of the petitioner was confined only to assist in collection of the sample. The petitioner as per Clause 15.1 of the Agreement cannot be held liable for any loss or deterioration of the product for any reason and as per Clause 19.1.3, if the maternal blood/cord blood and/or umbilical cord is delivered to answering the petitioner in accordance with Clauses 3 & 4 of Agreement, the said agreement shall stand terminated. The Clause No. 21.1 of the Agreement clearly provided that if any dispute arises between parties, the same shall be settled through Arbitration. The complaint is not maintainable and the complaint cannot be decided without leading any cogent evidence. The subject matter of present dispute cannot be decided in the consumer fora and required to be transferred to civil court for proper adjudication. The respondents are not entitled to any compensation on account of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner also denied other allegations as stated in the complaint. The petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant no. 2 tendered his affidavit in evidence along with documents. The petitioner tendered affidavit of Dhiraj Malik along with documents.
4. The District Forum passed detailed and comprehensive order and vide order dated 05.11.2013 decided the complaint in favour of the respondents and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the respondents on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner. The District Forum also considered objections of territorial jurisdiction and present REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 5 dispute need to be referred for arbitration and rejected these objections raised on behalf of the petitioner.
4.1 The District Forum also considered the contention of the petitioner that it was responsibility of the respondents to provide maternal blood and cord blood sample and observed that concerned physician did not agree to collect the cord blood sample and opined that in this circumstance it was duty of the petitioner through representative to collect maternal blood and sample of cord blood and/or umbilical cord stem cells. The District Forum also referred call details between the respondent no 2 and Preetinder Singh and on basis of call details observed that it was incumbent upon the representative of the petitioner to be quick and cautious and should have immediately made arrangement to reach at Mansa within a reasonable time and Gurjant Singh failed to reach Mansa in time for collection of sample. The District Forum has mentioned that the petitioner has failed to provide proper service to the respondents and prior information was also given to the petitioner through their representative to collect the Cord Blood and / or Umbilical Cord Stem cells but the petitioner failed to do so which is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
5. The petitioner and the respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the District Forum filed respective appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'). The respondents filed Appeal bearing F.A. No. 1354 of 2013 titled as Sonika Goyal and another V Cyrobanks International India Pvt. Ltd. seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by the District Forum being inadequate. The petitioner filed Appeal bearing F.A. No. 1359 of 2013 titled as 'Cyrobanks International India Private Limited V Sonika Goyal and another' for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission has decided both appeals by a common Order dated 22.09.2016(hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') as both these appeals arisen from the same Order dated 05.11.2013. The REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 6 State Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2016 by accepting the appeal bearing F.A. No. 1354 of 2013 filed by the respondents enhanced compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- and dismissed the appeal bearing F.A. No. 1359 of 2013 filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the District Forum.
5.1 The State Commission regarding question of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner while deciding the appeal bearing F.A.No.1359 of 2013 filed by the petitioner upheld that the District Forum has correctly found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The State Commission while deciding the issue of enhancement of compensation as awarded by the District Forum observed that the valuable medical right of newly bom baby for protection against 80 deadly diseases has been lost due to deficient and negligent act of the petitioner. The State Commission also referred Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State Commission held that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was at lower side and it should be enhanced. Accordingly the State Commission enhanced compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed two separate revision petitions before this Commission to challenge the impugned order bearing RP No 57 of 2017 titled as Cyrobanks International India Private Limited (now known as Cryoviva Bitoech Private Limited) V Sonika Goyal and another and the bearing RP No 58 of 2017 titled as Cyrobanks International India Private Limited (now known as Cryoviva Bitoech Private Limited) V Sonika Goyal and another primarily on grounds that observations made by the State Commission are against the contract agreement entered between the parties and the respondents after signing contract have never challenged the terms of agreement as unfair or one sided. The compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs as awarded by the State Commission is exorbitant, extra ordinary and whimsical and otherwise having no nexus with the alleged damages. The State Commission has REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 7 failed to draw the balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances and granted the compensation. The petitioner also challenged the impugned order on other various grounds and prayed that impugned order be set aside.
7. We have heard Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate along with Mr. Kirttin Sengupta, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate (V.C.) for the respondents. We have also perused material produced by the contesting parties on record.
8. The counsel for the petitioner after referring factual background argued that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is erroneous and the State Commission has erroneously did not appreciate the facts of the contract agreement dated 04.11.2013 entered into between the respondents and the petitioner and failed to appreciate the various clauses of Agreement which provides liabilities and duties of the respondents to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The counsel for the petitioner to substantiate said argument referred Clause 1.6 which provides the definition of physician as doctor obstetrician/gynecologist who engaged by the respondents to conduct the delivery and also to collect cord blood and/ or umbilical cord stem cells of newly bom baby at the time of delivery. It was further argued that the State Commission has also failed to appreciate the Clause 3 which clearly specifies the requirement of sufficient amount of cord blood / cord tissue for processing and storage of specimen and Clause 16.2 of the Agreement which specifies about refund of processing fees and storage fees in case of insufficient amount of cord blood/cord tissue collection and Clause 4 which stated that the responsibility of the petitioner only starts after receipt of maternal blood and umbilical cord. The counsel for the petitioner after referring these clauses argued that the contract nowhere provides that the petitioner is liable to collect the umbilical cord bold stem cells and said fact was also in knowledge of the respondents. The counsel REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 8 for the petitioner in the end argued for acceptance of both revision petitions and to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
9. The counsel for the respondents after referring the factual position of the case argued that the present revision petitions deserve to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to prove any material irregularity and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which warrants for any interference of this Commission in exercise of revision jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 21(b) of the Act. The impugned order was passed after appreciations of facts and law which does not warrant any interference. The scope of this Commission in revision jurisdiction as per Section 21(b) of the Act is very limited. The counsel for the respondents further argued that the State Commission while allowing the appeal of the respondents has clearly appreciate the facts and evidence specially the clauses of the agreement dated 04.03.2013 and the Bill of Airtel mobile company dated 27.03.2013 Ex. C-9 of the complainant no. 2 which established that the respondent no. 2 called Preetinder Singh being representative of the petitioner on 22.03.2013 at his mobile no. 98140 21103 several times. It was also argued that bill Ex-C-9 was also corroborated with the affidavit of respondent no.2. The counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that Ex.C-9 clearly established that the respondents have duly informed the petitioner in time for collecting the Cord Blood and Stem Cells of newly bom baby but the respondent had been completely failed to do it. The counsel for the respondents further argued the State Commission has already held that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the clauses of the agreement.
10. We shall first analyse the facts appearing from the record and the orders passed by The District Forum and the State Commission. The facts as emerging from the record are not substantially in dispute. It is an admitted position that respondents got enrolled with latest scheme known as Private Family Cord blood and/or REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 9 Umbilical Cord Stem Cells Storage Programme of the petitioner and paid Rs. 5,000/- in advance. The respondents have to pay Rs.85,000/- (Rs.5000/-registration charges+ Rs.31500/- as processing charges+Rs.48500/- as storage charges) at the time of obtaining and storage of the said Cord blood and/or Umbilical Cord Stem Cells of the newly bom baby. The Cord blood and/or Umbilical Cord Stem Cells storage is considered to be modem medical technique through which about 80 diseases can be treated with cord blood stem cells. The respondent no 1 delivered baby child but the sample could not be collected at the time of delivery. The District Forum and the State Commission observed that due to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the newly bom child of the respondents could not be able to avail the benefits of the said modem medical practice and suffered irreparable loss.
11. The petitioner primarily contended that it was the responsibility of the respondents to provide maternal blood and cord blood sample of the newly bom baby and to substantiate said contention referred the Clause 5 and in particular Clause 5.3 of the Agreement which provides that in case of non-availability of our collection representative in interior locations during collection, client needs to appoint the Physician and make payments to the Physical conducting the delivery of the baby for collection of the cord and for other maternity care services. The District Forum has dealt with said contention of the petitioner in order dated 05.11.2013 and observed that consent of the physician was to be obtained after referring Ex-C-4 Enrolment and Consent form and opined that as per record concerned physician did not agree to collect the cord blood samples and further observed that the petitioner through its representative was duty bound to collect maternal blood and sample of Cord Blood and / or Umbilical Cord Stem Cell of newly bom baby in the absence of any such consent by the physician. The State Commission in the impugned order has specifically concurred with above findings of the District Forum and observed that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to clauses of the agreement and REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 10 it was the duty of the petitioner to collect cord blood and umbilical cord cells of newly bom baby of the complainant at the time of delivery.
12. We have also considered another prime contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the representative of the petitioner was not duty bound to collect the cord blood sample as per the agreement but as a gesture of good well Preetinder Singh took steps to assist the respondents in collection of cord blood sample who instructed another technician Gurjat Singh who was based at Bhatinda at a distance of 65 km from Mansa to collect sample from Mansa and Gurjat Singh left for Mansa 12.50 am (in the mid night). It was further contended that Gurjat Singh had received a call from the complainant no.2 who informed that there was no need to come to Mansa since the deliveiy has taken place and thereafter Gurjat Singh retuned back and could not get the requisite sample during the said window period. The District Forum in this regard in impugned order after referring Airtel Bill dated 27.03.2013 Ex.C-9 observed that call details Ex. C-9 are ample evidence that the respondent no 2 on 22.03.2013 at 18.02.08 hours (6.02 pm) made a call to Preetinder Singh that the respondent no 1 was admitted in mother and child care Hospital on 22.03.2013 and again Preetinder Singh on 23.58.02 hours was also informed at this cell phone. The District Forum further observed that another call was made by the respondent no 2 on 23.03.2013 at 01.25.19 hours to Gurjat Singh. The child was bom on 1.42 am and the respondent no 2 also informed Gurjat Singh at 01.51.14 hours that the delivery has taken place. The District Forum specially observed that Preetinder Singh being representative of the petitioner did not receive any call at 12.15 am from the respondent no 2 rather he was informed at 6.02 pm on 22.03.2013 regarding the health of the respondent no 1. The District Commission observed that thereafter it was incumbent upon the representatives of the petitioner to be quick and cautious and should have immediately made arrangements to reach Mansa within a reasonable time. We are also in agreement with the findings given by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission that when the complainants have well within time informed about timings of the delivery and REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 11 address particulars of the hospital of the complainant no.l to the petitioner's representative, it was incumbent upon the representative of the petitioner to be quick and cautious and should have immediately made arrangements to reach at Mansa at reasonable time i.e. well before the delivery. The District Forum also observed that cord blood sample can be collected without any damage within 30-40 minutes and opined that Gurjat Singh could have definitely reached Mansa 1.50 am and could have collected the cord blood sample but he failed to do so as the delivery took place at 1.42 am. We are also in complete agreement with the findings rendered by the State Commission that as per the air tel bill dated 27.03.2013 Ex.C-9 it is well established that the respondent no 2 had timely informed to Preetinder Singh as well as Gurjat Singh, Technician of the petitioner to collect the cord blood sample of newly born baby at Mansa but it was the petitioner who have completely failed to do so despite repeated calls on their respective mobile nos.
13. Regarding enhancement of compensation in the appeal bearing F.A. No. 134 of 2013 filed by the respondents we are in completely agreement that in the valuable medical right of newly bom baby for safeguard of protection against 80 deadly diseases has been lost only due to negligent and deficient act of the petitioner. We are also in agreement with the findings given by the State Commission that compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- as awarded by the District Commission was on the lower side and the State Commission correctly enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. We do not force in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner that the State Commission has awarded compensation which is exorbitant extra ordinary and whimsical.
14. We after careful examination of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the contesting parties and their arguments are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The District Forum and the State Commission have given the concurrent findings and scope of REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 ;S the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. We did not notice any material infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. It is accepted legal proposition that National Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties like an appellate court. The Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta V United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (20'11) 11 SCC 269 held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited and such powers can be exercised only if there is some prime facie jurisdictional error appearing in the order. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity V State Bank of India & others, AIR 2022 SC577 held as under:-
The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
15. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the State Commission affirming the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, both of the revision petitions bearing RP no. 57 of 2017 and RP no. 58 of 2017 are dismissed being devoid of merit. The pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
t ( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
*
MEMBER
SSB/MS/B-3/Reserved
REVISION PETITIONS NO. 57 AND 58 OF 2017 13