False Assurances Regarding IVF Success Is Deficiency In Service And Unfair Trade Practice: Ernakulum District Commission

Brief facts:

The complainant got married on 02.06.2002. On being unable to conceive, she attended a medical camp organized by Broun Hall International Pvt. Ltd. ('1st party') at Sahakarana hospital, Vadakara on 15.05.2014. As per the complainant, two persons- Mr. Praveen Nair and Mr. Praveen Pillai misrepresented themselves as infertility specialists and assured the complainant and his husband of a 100% success rate in IVF treatment.

Relying on the assurance, the complainant paid Rs.1000/- as advance amount. Subsequently, Rs. 2,40,000 was paid to the Broun Hall ('1st party'), Fertility guide- Dr. Mahendran ('2nd party') and IVF Specialist- Dr. Meera ('3rd party'). All parties are referred to as 'Opposite parties'.

On receipt of the payment, the opposite parties stated that the IVF success was doubtful due to medical conditions and demanded an additional sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a hysteroscopy. The complainant then discovered that Mr. Nair and Mr. Pillai were marketing agents and all promises were baseless. The complainant then requested for a refund to which the opposite parties assured repayment.

The opposite parties informed the complainant that only Rs. 1,50,000 would be refunded. It claimed that Rs. 17,000 were spent on lab tests, Rs. 40,000was deducted by Head office and remaining amount was paid to the donor. However, despite repeated follow-ups and issuance of notice, no refund was granted to the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Ernakulum district commission.

Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a delayed reply to the complaint. Opposite party 2 failed to file any reply to the complaint. Hence, all opposite parties were proceeded as ex-parte by the commission and the complaint was decided on the basis of submissions and documents filed by the complainant only.

Observations of the commission:

The bench at the outset observed that since the opposite parties have failed to participate in the proceedings and challenge the arguments, there is no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant.

It was held that false promises made by the unauthorised agents and inducing the complainant to pay substantial amounts is both 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' under Section 2(1)(g) and Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further held that the failure to refund the amount to the complainant demonstrates an intent to exploit the complainant's emotional and financial vulnerability.

The 1st party who organized the camp and 2nd and 3rd parties who gave false medical advice to the complainant were jointly held liable by the commission for negligence.

The bench took note of the plight of vulnerable individuals such as the complainant who longed to experience motherhood but were misled by false promises.The commission highlighted the exploitative practices in the healthcare sector and observed that the conduct of the opposite parties reflects a grave breach of trust and ethics expected from medical institutions.

Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:

1. Refund of Rs. 2,41,000/-
2. Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience
3. Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs

Case Title: Seeja K.M vs M/s Broun Hall International India & Ors.

Case Number: CC No. 306/2016

Date of Decision: 27.06.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order