Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 515
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Supreme Court, J
P.Sreenivasulu – Appellant
Versus
P.J.Alexander – Respondent
C.A.No.7003-7004/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Educational institutions are not providing any services under consumer protection laws. Admissions disputes cannot be entertained by consumer forums.
Headnote:In accordance with the ruling in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, the court reiterated that education is not a commodity and educational institutions do not render services in a manner that falls under consumer protection provisions. The core issues presented were whether educational admissions related disputes can be adjudicated within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that such matters are beyond the Consumer Forum's jurisdiction. The final ruling stated, 'there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.'
1. 2015 Supreme(SC) 1738, C.A.No.7003-7004/2015 – P.Sreenivasulu & Anr. Vs P.J.Alexander & Anr., Decided on 09.09.2015
2. (2009) AIR (SCW) 2139, C.A.No.1135/2001 – Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana and Ors., Decided on 13.02.2009
“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [ (2010) 11 SCC 159 ] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 16:56:02 IST Reason: fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.**
