[Home](/)/[Reviews](/reviews/)/Commission orders refund in Avi Bhutani's baby-care placement dispute

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCEBaby-care placement

# Commission orders refund in Avi Bhutani's baby-care placement dispute

A district consumer commission found a service deficiency in Bhutani's baby-care placement complaint and ordered a refund, compensation, and costs.

**Source account by Avi Bhutani**Published October 19, 2026

AT A GLANCE

**Service**  
Baby-care placement  
**Source publication**  
November 27, 2025

[Read original source ↗](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/69a0b6bc9a153c7b62e737f8)

ON THIS PAGE

[The account](#the-account)[Topics](#story-topics)[Related stories](#related-stories)

THE FULL STORY

The published consumer commission decision says Avi Bhutani arranged full-time baby care under a 12-month-guarantee agreement dated 12 April 2023. The decision records a ₹31,767.61 payment on 11 April 2023, separate from the worker’s monthly salary. After the assigned worker stopped working later that month, Bhutani sought a replacement or refund. The decision records repeated replacement assurances without an effective replacement or refund.

The commission proceeded against Broomees _ex parte_ after recording due service. It found a deficiency in service and ordered a ₹31,767.61 refund with interest, ₹15,000 compensation, and ₹11,000 litigation expenses.

EXPLORE FURTHER

## Topics in this story.

[Consumer commission ↗](/topics/consumer-commission/)[Replacement ↗](/topics/replacement/)

[Browse all stories ↗](/reviews/)

KEEP READING

## Other stories.

Customer accountHousehold help

### [Aakanksha Jain reports repeated unsuitable helper placements](/reviews/aakanksha-jain-helper-placements/)

In a one-star Trustpilot review, Jain says a 90-day subscription did not lead to reliable household help and asks for more service time or a proportionate refund.

Source account: Aakanksha Jain[Read the story](/reviews/aakanksha-jain-helper-placements/)

Customer accountNanny service

### [Raman Upmanyu reports delayed nanny replacement and a refund dispute](/reviews/raman-upmanyu-nanny-replacement/)

Upmanyu says a nanny left due to illness and that he had waited 20 days for a replacement by 7 March 2026, while his refund request remained disputed.

Source account: Raman Upmanyu[Read the story](/reviews/raman-upmanyu-nanny-replacement/)

Customer accountNanny sourcing

### [Ayush Aggarwal describes nanny sourcing and consent concerns](/reviews/ayush-aggarwal-nanny-sourcing/)

In a public LinkedIn post, Aggarwal says he spent about three weeks seeking a nanny and objects to a person being sent without his interview or consent.

Source account: Ayush Aggarwal[Read the story](/reviews/ayush-aggarwal-nanny-sourcing/)

Customer accountWorker placement

### [Nikita Parasher says a refund offer was tied to deleting a post](/reviews/nikita-parasher-refund-post/)

Parasher alleges that, after 20 days without an assigned worker appearing, a refund was offered on condition that she delete a public post.

Source account: Nikita Parasher[Read the story](/reviews/nikita-parasher-refund-post/)