Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
PREM NARAIN, J.
M.D. Oswal Cancer Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nitin Kaushik and Another – Respondents
First Appeal No. 224 of 2014, Complaint No. 45 of 2009
Decided On : 04-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sukruta A. Chimalker.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Rekha Aggarwal.
The court emphasized the provisional nature of the admission, violation of guidelines by the appellant, and the lack of proof for fee payment, which influenced the decision.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Admission Dispute - DNB-CET - DNB Board - Refund of Fee - Mental Tension Compensation - Litigation Expenses - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 14(1)(d), Section 21(b)] - The court discussed the provisional nature of the appointment, violation of guidelines by the appellant, and the lack of proof for fee payment. The court also considered the compensation awarded and the payment of stipend by the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a hospital, admitted the respondent as a DNB Resident in Orthopaedics. The respondent requested a refund of the admission fees and filed a complaint for non-refund. The State Commission ordered a refund of fees, compensation for mental tension, harassment, and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the admission was provisional, the appellant violated guidelines, and the deficiency on the part of the appellant was established. The court also noted the lack of proof for fee payment and the payment of stipend by the appellant.
Issues: Admission Provisionality, Violation of Guidelines, Proof of Fee Payment, Compensation Justification
Ratio Decidendi: The admission was provisional, the appellant violated guidelines, and the deficiency on the part of the appellant was established. Lack of proof for fee payment and the payment of stipend by the appellant influenced the decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the order of the State Commission in respect of award of Rs. 5 lakh as compensation to the complainant was set aside. The remaining order of the State Commission was upheld.
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, M.D. Oswal Cancer Hospital against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh 2nd Additional Bench (for short ‘State Commission’) in CC No. 34 of 2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a hospital and respondent No. 1 is a student who took admission in the PG Course in the appellant Institution. The appellant vide an advertisement invited successful candidates who have cleared the DNB-CET for admission into its courses in various disciplines. The respondent No. 1 was one of the applicants to the DNB training at the appellant hospital. On 20.7.2007, the complainant was duly interviewed and thereupon invited to get admission in the field of Orthopaedics (DNB) at the appellant hospital. Respondent No. 1 joined the appellant hospital. On 21.6.2008, respondent No. 1 sent a letter to the appellant stating that:
“I beg to state that I have joined your institution in July, 2007 as a DNB Resident in Orthopaedics. My name could not be registered with the Board. Kindly refund my admission fees.”
3. The respondent No. 1 thereafter sent a resignation letter to the appellant hospital in order to get admission in another institution. The aforesaid resignation letter was duly accepted by the appellant hospital vide Reference No. 7748 dated 2.9.2008. Being aggrieved by non refund of the fees, the respondent No. 1 filed Complaint No. 45 of 2009.
4. The complaint was resisted by appellant/OP-1 No. 1 by filing the written statement. However, the State Commission vide its order dated 17.12.2013 allowed the complaint by ordering as under:
1. refund of fee of Rs. 3.5 lacs deposited with OP No. 1.
2. compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for mental tension, harassment, wastage of previous year and for adopting unfair trade practice.
3. Rs. 25,000 as litigation expenses.
5. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that there was no prayer for refund of Rs. 3.5 lakh in the complaint, however, the State Commission has ordered refund of Rs. 3.5 lakh as fees. The fact of the matter is that fees of Rs. 3.5 lakh was never taken by the appellant institution. It was emphasized by the learned Counsel for the appellant that when the selection letter dated 20.7.2007 was sent to the complainant, it was clearly stated in the letter that:
“this appointment is provisional subject to registration of the DNB Board, New Delhi after renewal of re-accreditation.”
8. Thus, nothing was suppressed from the complainant and the admission was provisional subject to getting reaccreditation from the DNB Board. Thus, it is wrong to say that the complainant was not aware that the course was not accredited for the time being and the appellant institute had applied for accreditation. The complainant took admission/appointment on his own risk fully knowing the facts. Thus, no deficiency can be alleged against the appellant institution. In this context, the learned Counsel argued that there should be no question of awarding any compensation to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the appellant further mentioned that a stipend of Rs. 13,000 per month as mandated by the Board was also given to the complainant and the State Commission has not adjusted this amount. The complainant has received this stipend for about a year. Learned Counsel for the appellant further states that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal and hence the delay may be condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant stated that he was issued the selection letter dated 20.7.2007 wherein it was clearly mentioned that he should join before 15.9.2007. On joining he was to deposit fees as per DNB norms for the academic year and formal appointment letter will be then issued. The learned Counsel f
