F. No. DGIR/2009/IP/10. Case: In Re: Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberF. No. DGIR/2009/IP/10
IssueMRTP Act, 1969 - Sections 2, 11(1), 36, 36(A) and 36A(1); Competition Act, 2002 - Section 66
Judgement DateJune 10, 2010
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. Consequent upon the repeal of the MRTP Act, 1969 this case has been received by transfer on 04.03.2010 from the office of DGIR, MRTP Commission under Section 66 of the Competition Act, 2002.

  2. Factual background of this matter is as under:

    2.1. The opposite party Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'LIPL') is engaged in the business of collecting, processing and storing of Umbilical Cord blood stem cell banking which is also termed as private stem cell banking. The main activity of the LIPL is to preserve the stem cell from the umbilical cord for the potential future medical benefit for a prescribed fee from willing parents. The parents are required to register with them by filling a 'Client Enrolment Form and Agreement'.

    2.2. The MRTP Commission on the basis of the brochure and client agreement of LIPL after taking cognizance of the fact that the company is representing that its 'Lifecell' is No. 1 Stem Cell Technology and claiming that it is the first and only accredited Cord Blood Stemcell Bank in India and has a technical collaboration with Cryo-Cell International, Florida, USA, directed the Director General (Investigation and Registration) vide its order dated 13.3.2009 to undertake a preliminary investigation into the aforesaid unfair trade practices indulged into by the LIPL. The MRTP Commission also found Clause 12 of the Client Agreement of the LIPL which limited the liability of the company in case of any possible loss of specimen amounting to unfair trade practice as defined under Section 36(A) of the MRTP Act.

  3. DG (IR) on receipt of the order of investigation issued probe letter dated 27.4.2009 under Section 11(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969 to LIPL and sought information/documents relating to the matter.

  4. The LIPL filed its reply in response to the probe letter along with the requisite documents on 4.7.2009. The reply, in brief, is as under:

    4.1. The LIPL has introduced a new client agreement w.e.f. 8.4.2009 which has inter-alia replaced the supposedly offending Clause 12 with the new Clause 11 to make the factual position in respect of the liability abundantly clear. LIPL has taken the stand that as the earlier clause has been replaced, the present enquiry has become infructuous. It has also stated that even under the old agreement, the investigation should not have been proceeded on the basis of impugned Clause 12 which is a limited liability clause in a contract between LIPL and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT