Bhiwani District Commission Holds Shanta IVF Clinic Liable For Failure To Initiate Surrogacy Programme And Refund Initial Payment Collected From Complainant

Brief Facts:

Mr Rajiv Kaushik (“Complainant”) was approached by a Marketing Executive of the Shanta IVF Centre (“Clinic”), introducing a surrogacy program run by the Clinic. Subsequently, the Complainant and his wife visited the Clinic, where it agreed to provide a surrogacy package for Rs. 9.00 lakhs, assuring delivery after 38 weeks. Relying on the promise, the Complainant made an initial payment of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the Clinic's bank account. However, the Clinic failed to take any managerial steps to initiate the surrogacy program despite repeated requests by the Complainant. Further, the Clinic demanded additional money, asserting a scarcity of surrogates in Delhi and stating that a prompt delivery required further payment. Consequently, the Clinic charged an extra Rs. 1,50,000/-, making the total amount Rs. 6,50,000/-. Despite this, the Clinic did not commence the program and avoided communication with the Complainant. Finally, after multiple requests, the clinic issued three cheques worth Rs. 6,50,000 to refund the amount. However, these cheques were dishonoured when the Complainant visited the bank account. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani, Haryana (“District Commission”).

The Complainant accused the Clinic of committing forgery and fraud against impoverished surrogates from Bihar, who delivered newborns to intended parents without receiving any compensation. Additionally, allegations of child trafficking were also made against the Clinic. Despite issuing notice to the clinic, no one appeared on behalf of the Clinic, thereafter, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission after referring to the evidence produced by the Complainant held the Clinic liable for negligence and deficiency in providing adequate services to the Complainant and his wife. The District Commission noted that this failure has resulted in both monetary loss and substantial mental and physical harassment for the Complainant.

Further, the District Commission held that there was a clear intention on the part of the Complainants to undergo treatment at the Clinic and the Clinic in return failed to provide any services and, instead, engaged in actions that amount to unfair trade practices on its part. The District Commission noted that the owner of the Clinic didn't defend the case which raised questions about the legitimacy of their actions and hindered their ability to present a counter-narrative or evidence to refute the Complainants' claims.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the Clinic to refund Rs. 6,50,000/- to the Complainant, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization. Further, it also directed the Clinic to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the Complainant and pay Rs. 5500/- for the litigation costs.

Case Title: Rajeev Kaushik and Anr. vs Shanta IVF Centre and Ors.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 142 of 2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant-in-person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ex parte

Click Here To Read/Download The Order