NEW DELHI: A Punjab district consumer commission, in an order dated July 14, directed Cordlife Sciences India to pay over Rs 2.16 lakh to a couple after it discarded their newborn’s umbilical cord blood sample over delay in payment. The commission said the company acted unfairly because the couple had never refused to pay and were not given a chance to make the payment before the sample was discarded.Why was the newborn’s cord blood sample thrown away?According to the commission’s order, the couple approached Cordlife Sciences India during the wife’s pregnancy to preserve their unborn child’s umbilical cord blood and stem cells for future medical use. They paid an initial amount of Rs 6,490, signed the required agreement and were told that the company would collect the sample immediately after delivery. The sample was collected from the hospital on September 15, 2023, and the company later informed them through an email that it had safely reached its storage centre.The couple alleged that after receiving this confirmation, they believed the preservation process had been completed successfully. However, on September 25, 2023, a company executive contacted them to collect the remaining payment by cheque. They immediately shared their address and asked the executive to collect the cheque at 1 pm. Before the representative could arrive, they received a message stating that the sample had been rejected because of delayed payment.The couple further claimed that they had never refused to make the payment and that the company had neither issued any reminder nor informed them that failure to pay within a particular period would result in the sample being discarded. They also claimed that the company gave inconsistent information about when the sample had reached its laboratory, raising questions over its handling of the specimen.However, the company argued that the couple had failed to complete the required payment and documentation within the time mentioned in the agreement. It relied on a contractual clause stating that cord blood samples could be discarded if payment and documents were not received within 72 hours of delivery because the specimen was perishable.Why did the commission order the company to pay Rs 2.16 lakh?The bench comprising President Dr Harveen Bhardwajand members Jyotsnaand Jaswant Singh Dhillonfound that the company had accepted the sample, transported it to its laboratory and confirmed that it had been received safely. However, it did not tell the couple that any payment or documents were still pending or that the sample could be rejected if the remaining amount was not paid immediately.“The conduct of the OP clearly shows that they have adopted the unfair trade practice. On the one hand, the OP accepted the specimen, transported it, acknowledged the safe receipt to its laboratory and continued correspondence with the complainants. On the other hand, it took subsequent stand that specimen stood rejected because payment had not been received within the contractual period,” the commission held.The commission also found that the company asked the couple to hand over the cheque on September 25, 2023, but rejected the sample almost immediately before collecting the payment. It noted that the couple had never refused to pay and that the company had not sent any written reminder, email or notice warning that the sample would be thrown away if payment was not made within a specified time.“Even if it is assumed that some payment remained outstanding, when one person is willing to make the payment, principles of fairness demanded that the OP should provide a notice and opportunity to the complainant to make the payment before rejecting the same, which by its very nature could have never been recollected after child’s birth,” the bench observed.The commission further noted that the agreement contained conflicting payment terms. While one clause allowed the company to reject the sample if payment was not received within 72 hours of delivery, another allowed up to 60 business days before ending the agreement for non-payment. It also found that the agreement did not clearly specify when the remaining amount had to be paid.“It is not disputed that the preservation of umbilical cord blood is a one time opportunity associated with the birth of the child only and once such specimen is discarded the loss becomes permanent and incapable of restitution,” it further observed.Holding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission directed it to refund the Rs 6,490 paid by the couple with 6 per cent annual interest, pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony and loss, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
