Duty To Collect Specimen Not Supported By Contract Terms: NCDRC Dismisses Appeal Against Cryoviva Biotech
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J Rajendra dismissed a deficiency claim against Cryoviva Biotech and held that the duty to collect the disputed specimen as per the contract was on the patient and not the company.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant entered into an agreement with the Cryoviva Biotech/opposite party for collecting and preserving her newborn's stem cells during pregnancy. She paid Rs. 15,000 for the service and received a stem cell preservation kit to be given to the doctor at the hospital. Despite providing the kit and requesting stem cell collection after delivery, the process was not carried out. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint alleging a deficiency in service before the State Commission of Kerala, which dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the complainant appealed before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The OPs argued that the complainant independently approached them for cord blood and stem cell storage for her expected baby. Before entering the contract, the OPs fully explained the product, its benefits, and limitations, which the complainant understood and accepted. She signed an agreement, agreeing to have medical professionals collect the samples and transport them to the OPs' laboratory. The OPs stated that their services would begin only after receiving the necessary samples from the complainant, which she was responsible for collecting through her physician. Since the complainant's physician did not collect the umbilical cord blood, the OPs argued there was no deficiency in service on their part. The agreement specified that the complainant was responsible for sample collection and transport. The OPs referred to a previous case (Export Credit Guarantee Corp of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International) and requested the dismissal of the appeal, affirming that the State Commission's decision was correct.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the State Commission dismissed the complaint, stating there was no direct contract between the complainant and the hospital or the doctor who collected the stem cell at the time of delivery. It was acknowledged that the OPs provided the blood and stem cell collection kit to the complainant. According to the terms of the agreement, the complainant was responsible for collecting the blood and stem cell during delivery and transporting it to the OPs facility. The OPs' responsibility was to receive, process, preserve, and store the specimen. The complainant's claim that it was the OPs' duty to collect the specimen was not supported by the contract terms. Additionally, the hospital and its staff were not parties to the agreement or the complaint. The commission upheld the State Commission's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Nisha T.S. Vs. Cryoviva Biotech Pvt Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 601/2019