Misplacement Of Stem Cell Sample: Delhi State Commission Holds Lifecell International Liable For Deficiency In Service

The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held Lifecell International liable for deficiency in service over misplacing the stem cell sample of the complainant's child. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant approached LifeCell International/opposite party for stem cell banking for her child and paid Rs. 20,990 towards the services. The opposite party took the umbilical cord blood but after some time informed the complainant that the sample had been misplaced during transit. The complainant claimed damages for Rs. 10 crores for mental agony, harassment, and loss of one-time opportunity and approached the District Commission. The District Commission awarded her compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs, against which the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission of Delhi. Contentions of the Opposite Party LifeCell denied the charges of negligence and claimed that it was the fault of a third-party transporter who lost the sample. It claimed its role was only processing, testing, and storing the sample once it reached their lab. LifeCell claimed the complainant had agreed to terms that limited liability to a refund of fees in such situations. They refunded Rs. 20,990 and offered the community banking option as a goodwill gesture. Observations by the State Commission The State Commission observed that LifeCell was negligent for failing to ensure safe delivery of the sample. It emphasized that the complainant fulfilled her contractual duties, and the loss occurred solely due to LifeCell's failure. The Commission rejected the argument of third-party responsibility since LifeCell did not provide evidence of taking action against the transporter. The Commission referred to the case of Rajesh Jhorawat vs. LifeCell International Pvt. Ltd., where Rs. 20 lakhs were awarded in a similar case. It also cited Anita Merchant vs. Suneja Towers, holding that compensation should consider all relevant factors but not include compound interest. The irreparable nature of the complainant's loss was considered, as the opportunity to store her child's stem cells was a one-time event. The appeal was dismissed, and the Rs. 20 lakh compensation was upheld. Case Title: Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharanya Sinha Case Number: F.A. No. 532/2024 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Misplacement Of Stem Cell Sample: Delhi State Commission Holds Lifecell International Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags