VARGHESE SILVESTER SHANTISADAN Vs. ARCHANA DHAWAN NURTURE CLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant, Mr. Varghese Silvester filed the present complaint claiming for more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite party Dr. Archana Dhawan of Nurture IVF Clinic, New Delhi. The Complainant approached the Dr. Archana Dhawan (OP) for fertility treatment (IVF), as a biological father with the donor egg from a Caucasian donor at a cost of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. He approached OP-1 through one Mr. Rajesh. The donor profile was approved by Mr. Ashish and the assurance of services was given by Mr. Bajaj, the Head of Administration. Mr. Bajaj introduced the Complainant to Mr. Sonu, a surrogate agent at Ghaziabad who provides services to the clinic.

(2.) The Complainant was offered surrogate services at the cost of Rs.3,50,000/- on installments. The Complainant alleged that the OP did not explain him about the details and the estimate cost of total treatment. The OP was very casual, hence the first two cycles, out of three, failed. Mr. Sonu could not bring the surrogacy, named Pinky in time when the test was conducted as per the advice of the doctor. The two lab reports of Pinki showed different ages like 25yrs and 29yrs, which created doubt in complainant's mind. Therefore, such casual approach was the reason for the negative result of the first IVF cycle. The OP did not produce clinical details, medical records and consent forms despite several visits. The OP made him to wait at her clinic for long hours unnecessarily. Hence, the Complainant, suffered lot of emotional stress and mental agony. The Sonu Surrogacy Agency took the cash but did not issue any receipt. Thereafter, 2nd surrogate named Geethu John was preferred, and for her the OP prescribed medication and ultrasound scanning. Those medications and ultrasound have several side effects. Some of them are life threatening. Hence, the Recipient (surrogate Geetu John) had to suffer a lot due to wrong advice and instructions given by the OP. The clinic, neither issued any required documents before the Embryo Transfer, nor provided the supporting documents to prove that the services of OP were genuine. The Complainant also alleged that, he was being followed and watched (spied) ever since he became a patron of the clinic. Therefore, he suffered immense mental constraints and prayed for claims, which are reproduced as follows:

(3.) As the plea raised by him only depicts that he has spent Rs.2.5 lacs only, prima facie, it appears that this Commission has no jurisdiction. On 16.12.2013, we have heard the Complainant, in person. We have given him an opportunity to give the detailed break-up of his claim/ prayer. Also, ordered the complainant to furnish the details of the recipient by the next date of hearing. Upon which, the Complainant filed revised complaint and submitted the breakup of his prayer on page 42, reproduced below as: