Educational institutions do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for post-admission disputes.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by Kailashchandra Bansal Collage of Technology (hereinafter referred to as ,the Petitioner Institute) under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challanging the Order dated 7.5.2016, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (herein after referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal was upheld.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant / Respondent herein got admission in MBA 2nd year in the Petitioner Institute and deposited a fee of Rs. 32,300 on 3.10.2009. Thereafter, on 29.10.2009, she applied for withdrawal from the course citing that the course was very difficult. On 16.11.2009, her admission was cancelled. She also applied for refund of fees deposited by her, which was rejected by the Petitioner Institute. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant / Respondent herein has filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the fees along with compensation and litigation cost.

3. The Complaint was resisted by the Petitioner Institute on the ground that as per the Orders of the State Government, in the Petitioner, the refund of fees was allowed only for students who had applied for cancellation of admission before 24.10.2019 and as the Complainant / Respondent got her admission cancelled on 16.11.2009, the fees cannot be refunded to her.

4. Based on the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the Complaint in ˜ part and directed the Petitioner Institute to refund the fees deposited by the Complainant / Respondent after deducting 10% within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.10.2019 till the date of payment. Litigation cost of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner Institute challenged the Order passed by the District Forum by filing an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while, dismissing the Appeal has held as under:
4. The case of the respondent / complainant before the District Forum was that she got admission in MBA 2nd semester in appellant's Institute after depositing Rs. 32,300 through on - line Counselling on 3.10.2009. But, because the course was very difficult she applied for withdrawal of admission on 29.10.2009. Her admission was cancelled by the Institute on 6.11.2009. When she applied for refund of her fees, appellant refused to refund the fees, appellant refused to refund the fees. The opposite party contended before the Forum that as per orders of the State Government refund of fees was allowed only in cases where the student got her / his admission cancelled before 19.11.2009. The District Forum after appreciating the material produced before them held that this condition was not communicated to the student and it was published only on 17.11.2009 in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. Since the publication was made by appellant / Institute on 17.11.2009 and the respondent / complainant applied for cancellation of her admission on 29.10.2009, she is entitled for refund of the amount of fees. The District Forum directed that appellant / Institute to refund the amount to respondent / complainant after deducting 10 percent amount from Rs. 32,300, within 2 months with 6 per cenf interest from 30.10.2009 till payment. An amount of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded as cost of litigation, In these circumstances, we find that the order passed by the Distr