Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4948
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
G. Radha Rani, President, Meena Ramanathan, Member, R.S. Rajeshree, Member
Vasa Hema Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalasala – Respondent
FA.NO.192 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Baglekar Akash Kumar
For the Respondents: M. Hari Babu
Educational institutions, including hostel and boarding facilities provided as ancillary to core education, do not fall within the definition of a 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; furthermore, allegations of deficiency of service require tangible proof of causality via expert evidence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Educational institutions providing hostel facilities - Whether they fall under the ambit of consumer protection laws - The court held that hostels and other incidental facilities provided by educational institutions as part of the residential experience are ancillary to core educational activities and do not constitute 'service' under the Act as per the ratio laid down by the NCDRC in Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University. (Para 12)
(B) Medical Negligence and Delay - Allegation of deficiency of service due to 2-hour delay in emergency response - The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the exact time of collapse, knowledge of the institution, and a causal link between the delay and the death - Mere entries in medical records without corroborative evidence or expert testimony are insufficient to discharge this burden. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The complainant’s daughter was a student at the respondent's hostel. On the night of December 17, 2019, she collapsed in the washroom and was later declared dead due to hypoxic brain injury. The complainant filed a complaint alleging medical negligence and delay in taking the student to the hospital, seeking compensation. The District Commission dismissed the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The institution’s incidental services (hostel/boarding) do not classify it as a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the complainant failed to substantiate the timeline of the alleged negligence or prove a causal link between the hospital arrival time and the fatal outcome.
Issues: (1) Whether educational institutions providing hostel facilities are subject to the Consumer Protection Act. (2) Whether there was actionable deficiency of service in the form of delay in hospitalizing the deceased student.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the NCDRC precedent, activities integrally connected with education, including boarding and supervision, do not constitute a 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, in medical negligence claims, causality must be proved via expert evidence; conjecture or suspicion regarding timeline delays is not sufficient.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the student's death and initial complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability and the service relationship. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. maintainability of complaints against educational institutions under consumer laws. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. evidentiary standards for establishing medical negligence and delay. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final confirmation of the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 15) |
Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon’ble President)
1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission-II, Hyderabad in CC.No.423/2021 dated 20.02.2023 in dismissing the complaint filed by him.
2. (a) The case of the Complainant in brief was that, his elder daughter (late V.Purvaja) was admitted in Opposite Party No.1’s college to pursue her Intermediate 2nd year for the academic year 2019-20. Opposite Party No.1 provided hostel facility for its students. His daughter was a hard working and studious student. He sent his daughter to Opposite Party No.1 hostel so that she could fully dedicate her time for studies. On 17.12.2019 at around 9:00 P.M., when the Complainant’s daughter went to attend nature call in the bathroom she fell down subconsciously. When other students screamed and were weeping, she somehow gained consciousness and opened the lock of the bathroom door. She was pulled out by roommates. Opposite Party No.1 took the Complainant’s daughter at around 11:20 P.M. to Opposite Party No.2 hospital. The daughter of the Complainant died on 18.12.2019 at 6:53 P.M. due to “Hypoxic Brain Injury” (where oxygen stops going into the brain).
(b) The Complainant contended that due to negligence of Opposite Party No.1, his daughter died. He approached the Telangana Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell on 25.01.2020 to amicably settle the dispute. But due to adamant attitude of Opposite Party No.1, the case could not get resolved in Alternate Redressal Cell. The case was closed vide order dated 27.07.2021. Aggrieved by the act of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant preferred the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- for the negligent act of Opposite Party No.1, to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for mental agony and trauma, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards travelling and legal expenses, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund, a total compensation of Rs.97,50,000/- as punitive damages.
3. (a) The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version contending that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no consumer relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The court had no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Complainant was not a consumer as there was no service undertaken by the Opposite Party. The Complainant suppressed material facts with an intention to gain unlawfully, as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The Complainant approached the Forum with unclean hands. The allegations made in the complaint were having several disputed questions of facts which could not be decided in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
(b) Opposite Party No.1 further contended that the Complainant’s daughter Kumari Purvaja Vasa was admitted as a second year intermediate student in the college, as a boarding student for the academic year 2019-20. She prosecuted her first year intermediate in Pine Grove Junior College, Bandlaguda, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District. At the time of admission, the first year results were yet to come. After admission it was found that she failed in Mathematics Paper-1 (B) and it was still pending. While admitting as boarding student, the college would obtain student profile as well as visitor’s record, a form duly filled in sticking the photo of student as well as the parents so as to identify the parents for visiting their ward. In the said fo
