Ernakulam Consumer Commission Slams IVF Centre For Misleading Promises; Orders ₹2.66 Lakh Refund And Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President D.B. Binu, Member V. Ramachandran, and Member Sreevidhia T.N, has held that misrepresentation and false assurances regarding the success of IVF procedures constitute both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission condemned the actions of the opposite parties and described the case as a clear example of exploitative practices within the medical sector, particularly concerning emotionally vulnerable patients.
The complainant, Seeja K.M., had married on 2 June 2002 but was unable to conceive. On 15 May 2014, she attended a medical camp organized by M/s Broun Hall International Pvt. Ltd. (1st opposite party) at Sahakarana Hospital, Vadakara. At the camp, Mr. Praveen Nair and Mr. Praveen Pillai introduced themselves as infertility specialists and assured the complainant and her husband of a 100% success rate in IVF treatment. Relying on this assurance, the complainant paid an advance of ₹1,000 and subsequently made payments totaling ₹2,40,000 to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd opposite parties—namely Broun Hall, Dr. Mahendran (fertility guide), and Dr. Meera (IVF specialist), respectively.
However, after receiving the full amount, the opposite parties conveyed that due to medical complications, the IVF success was doubtful and demanded an additional ₹40,000 for a hysteroscopy. It was at this stage that the complainant discovered that Mr. Nair and Mr. Pillai were not medical practitioners but marketing agents. Upon losing trust in the treatment, the complainant requested a refund. While the opposite parties initially promised repayment, they later stated that only ₹1,50,000 would be refunded, claiming deductions for lab tests, office charges, and donor-related expenses. Despite repeated follow-ups and a legal notice, no refund was made.
The complainant then approached the Consumer Commission, filing a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Although the 1st and 3rd opposite parties eventually filed their versions, they did so beyond the prescribed statutory period. The 2nd opposite party did not file any reply. As a result, all opposite parties were set ex parte, and the complaint was decided solely based on the unchallenged submissions and documents submitted by the complainant.
The Commission noted that the complainant had produced five documents, including the receipt of payment, legal notice, postal receipts, and bank account statements. The opposite parties, on the other hand, neither provided any counter-evidence nor cross-examined the complainant. This complete failure to respond was treated as an admission of the allegations, thereby reinforcing the complainant’s case.
In its findings, the Commission held that the use of unauthorized agents to make false promises of guaranteed IVF success, followed by the acceptance of substantial payment without delivering the promised service, clearly amounted to “deficiency in service” under Section 2(1)(g) and “unfair trade practice” under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission observed that the complainant was misled and exploited financially and emotionally, and this conduct represented a grave breach of the ethical standards expected from medical institutions.
The Commission emphasized that the case revealed how individuals longing for parenthood were manipulated by false assurances and unethical marketing tactics. It further noted that the conduct of the opposite parties turned what should have been a compassionate medical journey into one of deceit, distress, and emotional trauma.
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the opposite parties—jointly and severally—to refund ₹2,41,000 to the complainant. Additionally, the Commission awarded ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The amount is to be paid within 30 days of the order, failing which an interest of 9% per annum will apply from the date of filing the complaint (30 May 2016) until the realization of full payment.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Adv. Philip.T. Varghese, Thomas. T. Varghese, Alex. M. Thombra, Achu Shubha Abraham, Denny Varghese, Advocates
For the Opposite Parties: Adv. A. Anilkumar, P.J Anilkumar, P.S. Sreeprasad, Advocates
Cause Title: Seeja K.M V. M/s Broun Hall International India & Ors.
Case No: CC No. 306/2016
Coram: Shri.D.B. Binu [President], V. Ramachandran, Sreevidhia T.N [Members]
