Complainant Saloni Saini through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that legal step may kindly be taken against the Life Cell Company, Company’s staff members, employers working at their branch office Amritsar and justice may also be given to the complainant according to terms and conditions of the plan and also refund the amount which was paid to the Company along with compensation amount i.e. paid amount Rs.15,990/-, litigation expenses Rs.10,000/-, compensation Rs.30,000/-, total amount of Rs.55,990/-.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 17.08.2015 she was admitted at Deep Multispecialist Hospital Gurdaspur as she was pregnant and two employers namely Manpreet Kaur and her boss Rohit Verma came who are working under Life Cell Company. They both met them and convinced them to take a plan of Life Cell Company which will always help them to cure diseases in future for their new born baby, mother, father and other family members. It was pleaded that the above said employers gave the descriptions of plan that under this plan they will preserve/save the cord tissue and cord blood of their born baby and for this complainant paid the amount of Rs.15,990/- and this plan was made between the complainant and Life Cell Company through Manpreet Kaur and Rohit Verma. It was further pleaded that later on said employers of the Company made denial about the saving process of cord blood tissue through which the main treatment could be given and Company totally denied from the settled plan which was made between the parties. It was also pleaded that Company misappropriated the complainant by define a false plan for extracting money and with the business motive only and as such Company totally defrauded the complainant and never give any single benefit to the complainant which was settled on 17.08.2015/18.08.2015. It was next pleaded that the said plan was signed by the parties on the same day and baby (Boy) was born on 19.08.2015 and for the next installment of Rs.25,000/- till the month of August, husband of complainant namely Mr.Pardeep Khanna was called by the Company and Company members are doing all this to extract money from the complainant with the intention to defraud again her, hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complainant was served upon the opposite parties but they did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.09.2016.

4. Complainant had tendered into evidence her own affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 along with documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and closed her evidence.

5. We have duly heard the learned counsel for the complainant in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced on records in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the Consumer Protection Act 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the opposite party Service providers have preferred to stay away from the present proceedings despite the duly served summons and were thus ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide the forum's orders dated 15.09.2016. We take judicial notice of the settled principle in law that a litigant opting/preferring to be proceeded against ex-parte does not have a cogent/ logical defense to prosecute but at the same time the adjudicatory authority shall ensure that no undue prejudice is caused to the legal rights and interests of the ex-parte litigant.

6. We find that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations as put forth in her complaint by way of producing any cogent evidence in the form of Plan details, Benefits offered, Invoice, Deficiency details etc and/or any other reliable document etc to prove the same in the absence of which the lone affidavits Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 (and postal receipt of legal notice Ex.C4 & C5) do not amount to more than mere 'bald' statements. Even the allegations are not self-expletive so to convey the exact loss/deficiency in service. It is not clarified as to what exactly 'promised' benefit was not provided by the service providers. The complainant has failed to present and prove her case. What is understood from the evidence available on the records has been that an amount/fee of Rs 15,990/- were paid and accepted for the preservation of the 'baby-stem-cells' and the complainant's own produced 'preservation-certificate' Ex.C3 proves the execution/compliance of the same. It also mentions deposit of Rs.3,500/- per annum for preservation of stem cells and in the absence of any original agreement/contract detailing the exact benefits promised and also the details of the benefits denied nothing stands alleged/determined in legal terms.

7. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint as bereft of all statutory merit under the applicable provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs. The complainant shall however be at liberty to avail herself of any other remedy of her choice/advice in law but proceeded as per the procedure prescribed in law.

8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

OCT. 24, 2016                                                            Member.

*YP*