Surat: The Navsari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) directed a Chennai-based stem cell banking company to pay Rs 20 lakh to a 30-year-old woman after it failed to honour a contractual commitment related to stem cell treatment.The woman entered into an agreement with LifeCell International Pvt Ltd under which the stem cells of her newborn child would be preserved for 75 years and made available whenever required by her family for medical treatment. Under the agreement, the company also assured compensation of Rs 20 lakh if it failed to provide suitable stem cell samples.According to the case records, the woman, a resident of a village in Gandevi taluka, enrolled in the stem cell preservation programme while pregnant. On Jan 3, 2024, she paid Rs 64,710 and signed an agreement with LifeCell. The company undertook to preserve the child’s stem cells for 75 years and provide them whenever needed for treatment. It also assured that if the stored samples did not match, it would attempt to procure matching samples from another stem cell bank. In the event of failure, the company would be liable to pay Rs 20 lakh towards treatment expenses.The woman gave birth to a boy on Jan 20, 2024, at a hospital in Navsari. Stem cell samples were collected and stored.In March 2024, her husband was diagnosed with leukaemia. Following medical advice, she approached the company in April and submitted all necessary reports. The company subsequently sent the stem cell samples, but doctors found that they did not match her husband’s requirements.On May 19, 2024, she informed the company that suitable samples were available through another stem cell registry in Chennai and sought help in procuring them. She obtained the required samples through that registry and incurred treatment expenses of Rs 23.9 lakh, in addition to nearly Rs 5 lakh in other related costs.Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, she approached the Navsari CDRC on July 11, 2025, seeking reimbursement of treatment expenses and compensation.During the proceedings, the company’s advocate appeared before the commission in Sept 2025 and sought time to file a reply. However, no reply was submitted despite opportunities granted on three subsequent hearing dates.The woman’s counsel argued that all documents sought by the company were provided. He submitted that the company itself supplied details of the third-party registry from which the matching stem cells were ultimately procured. Despite collecting a substantial premium and acknowledging the availability of alternative samples, the company neither arranged the treatment support nor paid the promised compensation, he argued.The company contended that sample mismatches are a natural phenomenon and that a child’s stem cells match a parent in only a limited number of cases. According to the company, the family independently chose to procure samples from a third-party registry and failed to provide all documents necessary to process the compensation claim.After examining the evidence, the commission observed that the company repeatedly sought documents without specifying what was lacking, despite receiving all relevant records. If further clarification was required, it could have contacted the treating doctors directly. Instead, the commission noted, the repeated correspondence appeared intended to harass the complainant..It held that after directing the woman to a third-party registry and subsequently refusing to honour the compensation clause, the company committed a serious deficiency in service.The CDRC ordered the company to pay Rs 20 lakh with 9% annual interest, along with Rs 50,000 towards compensation for mental agony, physical hardship and litigation expenses.
