Education services offered by private institutes do not fall under consumer protections, as the evaluation process and resulting grievances show no deficiency in services rendered.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER

1. This Revision Petition is filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”), against the Order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (“State Commission”) in First Appeal No.242 of 2017. In the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 the State Commission dismissed the appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhattisgarh (“District Forum”) in Complaint No.472 of 2016 dated 15.03.2017, wherein the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the Complainant.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that, she is a second-year MBBS student at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, and aspired to pursue a postgraduate medical degree. To secure the best possible coaching for this purpose, the complainant participated in a scholarship examination conducted by OP-1, which was held at various centres, including the centre managed by OP-2. Despite the examination coinciding with her professional exams, she made every possible effort to take the scholarship test, performed excellently in the test and expected to secure a rank among the top 20 candidates. The scholarship exam, organized by Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Private Limited, was held on 23.10.2016. Upon completion, the complainant submitted her answer sheet to Mr. Luv Jaiswal, the Head-in-Charge of Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Private Limited at the Bilaspur centre. On 30.11.2016, the complainant learned that the examination results were declared, but her name did not appear in the list of selected candidates published by OP-1. The complainant was confident in her performance, but her expectations were shattered when she get her result. On the same day, she contacted OP-2 to inquire about the result. During the course of the conversation, it came to light that Mr. Luv Jaiswal failed to send her answer sheet to OP-1. Although she anticipated a proper explanation or resolution from Mr. Jaiswal, no substantial action was taken. After repeated efforts and following up with both OP-1 and OP-2, the complainant managed to retrieve her answer sheet. Subsequently, while the initial results were declared on 30.11.2016, her result was separately declared on 03.12.2016, and she was informed that she had secured the 28^th rank at the All India level. The complainant finds it incomprehensible how she was placed at rank 28 when another candidate had already been listed in the same position in the result dated 30.11.2016. The complainant made multiple representations to OP-1, requesting access to her evaluated answer sheet as well as the answer sheets of the candidates ranked above her. Despite several communications, no action has been taken by OP-1 to address her legitimate concerns. Accordingly, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking appropriate relief.

4. On issue of notice, the OPs filed written statement and raised preliminary objections. OPs averred that she approached this forum with unclean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. They argued that the forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the matter involves substantial disputed questions of fact and law that require adjudication through proper evidence and trial. The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature and not suited for such disputes. The OPs further contended that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the comp