A Punjab consumer body has held Cordlife Sciences India Pvt Ltd guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for discarding a newborn’s umbilical cord blood and stem cell sample over an alleged delay in payment, and directed the company to refund the booking amount of Rs 6,490 and pay Rs 2.10 lakh as compensation.Observing that stem cell preservation is a “one-time opportunity” that cannot be recreated after childbirth, president Harveen Bhardwaj, along with members Jyotsna and Jaswant Singh Dhillon of the Jalandhar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, found that the couple was left disappointed because of the loss of opportunity to protect their child, sibling, parents and grandparents from “any terminal disease in the future”.“The opposite party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in rejecting the sample merely on the ground of non-payment or late payment, whereas it has been proved that the complainant has never refused to make the payment,” the July 14 order read.Agreement, collection of stem cellsThe couple claimed that they approached the said company, namely Cordlife Sciences India Private Limited, during their pregnancy for preservation and long-term storage of the umbilical cord blood and stem cells of their yet-to-be-born child.The couple added that the company’s representatives approached them with the assurance that preservation of the stem cells would provide future medical benefits to the child and family members. Being convinced, the couple opted for the services offered and paid an initial amount of Rs 6,490 and executed the necessary agreement.Subsequently, after informing the company about the date of delivery, their team collected the umbilical cord blood and stem cell sample from the hospital on September 15, 2023. The couple was informed through email that the specimen had safely reached its storage centre.Also Read | Dry cleaner held liable for ‘stained’ silk saree despite disclaimer, consumer wins Rs 6,000However, later on September 25, 2023, for the first time, the staff of the said company allegedly contacted them for collection of a cheque towards payment. The couple claimed that they immediately communicated the address where the cheque could be collected and requested the staff to collect the same at about 1 pm.However, the couple added, before the representative arrived, they received a message stating that due to delayed payment, the company had rejected the collected sample and was unable to preserve it any longer.Story continues below this adThey also pointed out that subsequent communications issued by said company reflected inconsistency regarding the dates on which the sample had reached, which indicates negligence and lack of professionalism. On these allegations, the couple moved the commission seeking compensation of Rs 48 lakh along with litigation expenses. The couple was represented by advocate Haranmol Singh.All allegations deniedThe company argued that the couple voluntarily opted for the particular preservation plan after the terms and conditions had been fully explained to them. They claimed that copies of all contractual documents were supplied to the couple, who accepted the same without protest.Denying every allegation of deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on their part, the company argued that the complaint had been filed only to recover money without any legal basis. They submitted that the couple themselves committed breach of the agreement by failing to provide the required payment instruments and prescribed documents within the stipulated time.They added that a particular clause of their agreement required the client to complete all requisite documentation and submit the agreed payment before or within the prescribed period after delivery, failing which the company reserved the right not to process or preserve the specimen, considering its perishable nature.Story continues below this ad‘No mention of pending payment’Referring to the email correspondence between the parties, the commission noted that there was no mention of any outstanding payment in the company’s email confirming receipt of the sample. It further observed, “The preservation of umbilical cord blood is a one-time opportunity associated with the birth of the child only and once such a specimen is discarded the loss becomes permanent and incapable of restitution.”The commission also noted that although the total package was worth Rs 62,990, the agreement did not specify any due date for payment of the balance amount. It further observed that the couple had never been given an opportunity to correct any alleged default or explain the matter before the sample was rejected.Also Read | Can’t refuse bail to ‘teach lesson’ to POCSO accused: Jammu and Kashmir High CourtIt also found that the said company had not sent any written reminder, demand notice, telephone call record or email specifically informing the couple that failure to make payment within a specific period would result in permanent rejection of collected biological material. “The conduct of the opposite party clearly shows that they have adopted the unfair trade practice,” it added.Accordingly, the commission directed the company to refund the amount of Rs 6,490 received from the couple towards the cord blood preservation package. It further directed the company to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 2 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, loss and harassment suffered by the complainants, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses within 45 days.Story continues below this adTakeawayThis ruling highlights that a company cannot reject a service over delayed payment when the payment deadline was not clearly communicated in advance and the consumer was not given an opportunity to correct the alleged default.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Punjab: 0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.