Student is Not a 'Consumer' Under Consumer Protection Act for Statutory Examination Functions: Chhattisgarh State Commission - 2025-09-05

State Commission Upholds Dismissal of Student's Complaint, Rules Educational Institutions' Statutory Functions Fall Outside Consumer Act

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has affirmed that a student participating in examinations conducted by an educational institution is not a 'consumer' and the institution is not a 'service provider' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with respect to its statutory functions. The bench, comprising President Justice Gautam Chourdiya and Member Pramod Kumar Verma, upheld a District Commission's order dismissing a complaint filed by a nursing student against her college.

The Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Simmi Sinha against V.M. College of Nursing, Surajpur, finding it devoid of merit and holding that the dispute did not fall under the purview of the consumer forum.

Case Background

The appellant, Simmi Sinha, was a second-year B.Sc. Nursing student at V.M. College of Nursing. She filed a complaint with the District Consumer Commission, Surajpur, alleging severe deficiencies in service by the college. Her complaint was dismissed on November 22, 2022, prompting the present appeal.

Sinha alleged that after paying fees totaling ₹1,60,000, she fell ill due to substandard food and living conditions at the college hostel. Her request to live off-campus was denied. Subsequently, when she requested a Transfer Certificate (TC) and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to leave the institution, the college allegedly demanded the remaining course fees of ₹2,40,000. She accused the college of withholding her documents, seizing her practical file, and engaging in exam malpractice.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Arguments (Simmi Sinha): The appellant, through her counsel, argued that the District Commission erred in dismissing her complaint. She contended that the poor hostel facilities directly impacted her health, constituting a clear deficiency in service. She claimed the college's demand for full course fees before issuing an NOC was coercive and illegal, and that she had filed complaints with the police and the District Collector, which were ignored by the college.

Respondent's Arguments (V.M. College of Nursing): The college countered that Sinha was an unruly and frequently absent student. They presented affidavits from other students and staff attesting to the high quality of hostel food and facilities. The college administration stated that Sinha had not completed her own practical work and had attempted to pass off another student's work as her own. They argued that their policy of requiring full payment of outstanding dues before issuing an NOC is standard practice, as a student's seat is reserved for the entire four-year course duration. Crucially, the college pointed to an affidavit signed by Sinha herself, where she attributed her two-year academic gap (2017-19) to financial hardship, contradicting her claims against the institution.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedent

The State Commission's primary consideration was whether a consumer-service provider relationship existed between the student and the college in this context. The bench heavily relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) .

Citing the precedent, the Commission noted:

"When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its 'services' to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination... hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration... The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, not convert the examinee into a consumer..."

Applying this principle, the Commission concluded that the relationship between Sinha and the college did not qualify as one between a 'consumer' and a 'service provider' under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer forum.

On the merits of the allegations, the Commission found Sinha's claims unconvincing. It gave weight to the affidavits from other students and staff who praised the college's facilities. The court also highlighted the contradiction presented by Sinha's own affidavit, which cited financial reasons for her academic break. The Commission concluded that the appellant had failed to substantiate her allegations of deficiency in service and that her conduct did not appear bona fide.

Final Decision

Finding no reason to interfere with the District Commission's detailed and well-reasoned order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as being without merit. The order of the Surajpur District Consumer Commission was confirmed, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.