The Geforce 9500M is a midrange card while the 210 is basically the absolute lowest budget card in the 200 series, I'm not surprised the 9500 gets a higher score to be honest.
Nvidia basically differentiate their graphics card on the following basis:
Where (S) is the series, (M) is the effective placement within that series, (V) is the variant (generally updated cores with similar performance) and (X) is generally 0 for all older cards and is missing on newer cards. M denotes a mobile card which is generally more power efficient.
So 9500M gives you a 9 series card, with midrange (5) performance. 210 will be a 2xx series card with absolutely basic performance (1). 295 would be 2xx series with bleeding edge performance (9).
While it is not unlikely that a midrange of a new series will outperform the high end of the previous series it is not set in stone and I would well expect that a budget card of a newer range to be put to shame by the midrange of the previous generation. Newer is not always an upgrade, sometimes for performance it is better to go back a series of card and buy the high end of that series, which may well cost the same as a midrange of the new series.
From the Wikipedia page I would expect that the 210 would be quite similar to the 9500M as the memory bandwith and processing power sections are quite similar, but I can't say I'm entirely suprised that the 9400M scores slightly better.
The other thing to note that the Windows Experience benchmark may be testing the card in different ways to get to the score it ends up with so results will vary.