Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President, V.K. Jain, Member and M. Shreesha, Member
Manu Solanki and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Vinayaka Mission University (formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation deemed University) and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.261 of 2012, Consumer Case No.2238 of 2018, Consumer Case No.267 of 2012, Revision Petition No.1366 of 2019, Revision Petition Nos.1731 to 1733 of 2017, Revision Petition No.1960 of 2016, Revision Petition No.2047 of 2013, Revision Petition No.222 of 2015, Revision Petition Nos.2955 to 2963 of 2018, Revision Petition No.3159 of 2014, Revision Petition Nos.3383 and 3384 of 2018, Revision Petition No.3384 of 2018, Revision Petition Nos.721 and 722 of 2018, Revision Petition No.82 of 2017
Decided on 20.1.2020
For the Students/Complainants:Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain, Advocate Ms. Deepasha Talwar for R-1 Ms. Mansi Bajaj, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Tyagi, Advocate Ms. Nitin Prakash, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Smaran kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ruchita, Advocate Ms. Preety kakkar, Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Kakkar, Advocate Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Advocate Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aman Shukla, Advocate
For the Education Institutions:Mr. Soumyajit Pani and Mr. Chittaranjan Singh, Advocates Ms. Pooja Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Pradeep Mishra, Advocate Ms. Binisa Mohanty, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kumar (AAG) with Mr. Shakti Verma, Advocate Ms. Monalisha Kosaria, Advocate Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocate Mr. Bhanwar Lal Parekh, Advocate Mr. Pratap Shanker, Advocate Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate Ms. Monalisha Harsa, Advocate Mr. Pallav Mongia, Advocate Ms. Sneha Jeetam, Advocate Mr. Anant Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Pratap Shanker, Advocate Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate Ms. Monalisha Harsh, Advocates Mr. Abdul Rahiman Tambdi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If an Institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Revision petition – Complainants – University – Deficiency service – Unfair trade practice – False assurances – Requisite approvals – Consumer – Institution imparting education – not proper affiliation – Not rendering service – Institutions – Education – Vocational courses – Not covered – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complain dimsised. ( Para 2, 4, 31, 37)
Result: Complain Dismissed.
ORDER
The case of the Complainants in Consumer Complaint No. 261 and 267 of 2017, is that the Opposite Party University has indulged in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by inducing them and false assurances that the University had the requisite approvals and the Complainants, who were admitted in the offshore program in 2005-2006 comprising of two year study in Thailand and two and half years study in the Opposite Party University, would be getting their MBBS final degree conferred by the Opposite Party University and recognized by the Indian Government and Medical Council of India.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants submitted that after two years of study in Thailand, the students were informed that they should continue their course at Thailand and would be conferred a Foreign Medical Degree and should subsequently appear for screening test in India. Learned Counsel submitted that a Writ Petition was preferred by the Opposite Party before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras seeking permission for the Complainants’ seniors to appear in the screening test, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The National Board of Examination in the meantime filed a Writ Appeal and the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal holding that the qualification is not a primary medical qualification since the Degree is not recognized by the Medical Council of India or the Council of Thailand. On 17.05.2010, the Complainants passed their final exams of MBBS course and were issued a Provisional Certificate. On 30.08.2010, the Complainants’ senior preferred SLP (C) No. 25911 of 2010 and some of the Complainants have also preferred SLP (C) No. 10016 of 2011 and vide Order dated 22.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs. It is the Complainants’ case that thereafter several meetings were held with the University Vice Chancellor and the Registrar and it was orally committed that they would be offered seats in the Educational year 2012-2013 in the three Medical Colleges of the University in the NRI quota and in the event of the Opposite Party not getting recognition from Medical Council or the National Board of Examination their amounts would be refunded with interest. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Complainants were neither allowed to participate in the examination conducted and that the Academic Year 2012-2013 commenced without the Complainants being granted the seats nor any compensation was paid. Hence the Complaint seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to compensate for the deficiency of service and the unfair trade practice indulged in by the Opposite Party and pay each of the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,44,13,573/- towards loss of social standing, loss of Academic Years, loss of career opportunities, mental and physical agony.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), submitted that students are not ‘Consumers’ and ‘Education’ is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service’. As against this argument, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants’ submitted that there were other judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7003-7004 of 2015, P. Sreenivasulu & Anr. Vs. P. J. Alexander & Anr., dated 09.09.2015, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that Educational Institutions would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that Education is a Service. He further argued that in the judgement cited by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties it has not been emphatically laid down that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain ‘all disputes’ regarding ‘any activity’ associated with ‘Educational Institutions’.
4. The main point for consideration is whether all activities associated with Educational Institutions, whether they pertain to the
