State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Ronald Yesuthason, S/O Y.Samuel vs Anna Medical College & Research Centre, ... on 27 September, 2023
Daily Order IN THETAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 600 003. BEFORE THE HON'BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F. A. No. 4 of 2023 (Against the Order dated 14.10.2022 made in RBT/C.C.No.202 of 2022 on the file of D.C.D.R.C. Ariyalur) Wednesday, the 27th day of September, 2023 S.Renald Yesuthason, S/o Y.Samuel, 1/15C, Near Village Office, South Thamaraikulam & Post- 629 701, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant/ Complainant -Versus- 1. Anna Medical College & Research Centre, Royal Road, Solitude, Republic of Mauritius, Office in India at: 1312, 11th Main Vijay Nagar, Bangalore - 560 040. 2. The Chief Administrative Officer, Anna Medical College & Research Centre, 10, Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Road, RA Puram, Chennai - 600 028. 3. Vaidyalingam, The Chairman, Anna Medical College & Research Centre, Accura Speciality Labs & Scans, No.26/53, 2nd Street, Kamaraj Avenue, Adayar, Chennai - 600020. ... Respondents/ Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant : M/s. Elizabeth Ravi Respondents 1 to 3/opposite parties 1 to 3: Served. Called absent. This appeal came up for final hearing on 20.09.2023 and on perusing the material records, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission made the following: ORDER
JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the Complainant under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in RBT/C.C.No.202 of 2022, by the District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Ariyalur, in so far as rejection of the complaint for refund of Rs.11,50,000/- towards the fees paid by the complainant in the first opposite party college at Mauritius.
2. The case of the complaint is that the complainant had completed his Higher Secondary Course Examination conducted by the State Board of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, in March 2014, securing 929 marks out of 1200 marks. The marks secured by the complainant, was below the cut-off marks fixed for the admission into the Medical Course. However, attracted by misleading advertisements made by the opposite parties, that the first opposite party institution situated at Mauritius is recognized by the Medical Council of India, and that having admission with the University therein, it is providing education of aspiring medical students, from around the world, to pursue the Under Graduate Medical Programmes (MBBS), through its extensive blend of structured lecture, lab and clinical training activities. The complainant applied to the first opposite party, at their Chennai office, and the second opposite party and Admission Manager, received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under a cash receipt on 11.07.2014, and thereafter, paid a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the credit of the first opposite party, on 14.07.2017, in the Bank Account maintained by them in their name, with ICICI Bank, and the balance of remittances were made at the branch office of ICICI Bank, Kanyakumari Branch. Pursuant to the said payment, the Dean issued an order of admission dated 17.07.2014, and at the time of payment of another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but, without any receipt, the complainant handed over the following documents in original, namely, (i) 10th Mark Sheet No.0115560; (ii) 12th Mark Sheet No.8630326; (iii) The conduct Certificate issued by CSI Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil; (iv) Transfer Certificate issued by CSI Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil; (v) Passport of the complainant. Subsequently, the passport alone was returned to the complainant, to enable him to travel from India to Mauritius, but other documents were not returned, but they were retained by the opposite parties. The father of the complainant was made to pay a total sum of Rs.11,50,000/-, and the complainant joined the course, from the academic year beginning from the month of September 2014. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the first opposite party institution had not been recognized by the Medical Council of India and also due to the illness, and other circumstances, without continuing the academic course, the complainant returned to India, by leaving the information to the first opposite party, at Mauritius through the second opposite party that he is not continuing with the course and the balance amount of the payments made by the father of the complainant and his certificates in original could be returned to him. The complainant was informed that since, the certificates were entrusted at Chennai and the admission letter was also issued and handed over to the complainant at Chennai, he would be getting the information as to the date, when, the complainant could go over to Chennai and get back the amount as well as receive the certificates in original. However, the opposite parties neither returned the certificates in original nor refund the unutilized fees, paid by the complainant, for the academic course and in this context, there was an affidavit signed by the father of the complainant and such an affidavit was taken from him by making him to believe that those were all part of the admission procedure and the affidavit was taken on 11.07.2014 and the affidavit was countersigned by one Ravi Venkataraman, the Chief Administrative Officer. In spite of several repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties did not return the original certificates retained by them, and also they did not return the balance of fees, and all the efforts of the complainant and his father, proved to be futile. The complainant made a complaint dated 05.04.2017, to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, as against the opposite parties. The Commissioner forwarded the complaint to the Inspector of Police, J2 Adayar Police Station, and the Inspector issued a receipt No.68/2017, and called the opposite parties for enquiry and during the course of the preliminary enquiry the second opposite party, admitted the receipt of the certificates and the amounts, but, gave an evasive answer that the documents are not with him. The Inspector of Police called upon the third opposite party and granted him 15 days time for the production of the certificates and return of the amounts to the complainant, by getting instructions from the second opposite party, and if necessary, from their office at Mauritius. The opposite parties did not return the certificates and the unutilized amount as well. Hence, the complainant had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.10828 of 2017, before the High Court, Chennai, to direct the Inspector of Police, Adayar Police Station, to register the complaint dated 05.04.2017, made by the complainant in C.S.R.No.68 of 2017, and take up further investigation in accordance with law and file a final report. The High Court, Chennai, has passed an order dated 06.07.2017, thereby directing the Inspector of Police, Adayar Police Station, to register the complaint dated 05.04.2017, and to register FIR, and to conduct an enquiry and to complete the same, within a period of seven days, from the date of information, if there is any cognizable offence, committed by the opposite parties herein. The Inspector of Police, Adayar Police Station conducted an enquiry on 28.07.2017 and the third opposite party appeared before him and handed over all the certificates, which belongs to the complainant, except the 1st year M.B.B.S Course Completion Certificate. In respect of return of all the fees paid by him to the first opposite party, the third opposite party gave evasive reply and the Inspector of Police, also did not pressurize the third opposite party about the return of the said amount. Hence, he filed a complaint for the following reliefs:
i) To direct the 1st opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- to the complainant with respect to his admission in MBBS Course in the first opposite party college at Mauritius;
ii) To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony caused to the complainant and;
iii) To pay the complainant, the cost of this complaint.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the second opposite party stating that the complainant is not at all maintainable before the Consumer Commission in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.22532 of 2012 dated 09.08.2012 in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Sujeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein it has been held that education is not a commodity and the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission 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. The second opposite party states that he was appointed as authorized consultant/Agent to admit students for September 2014 batch in the first opposite party institution, Anna Medical College and Research Centre at Mauritius. The first opposite party admitted the complainant in their institution for the academic year commencing from September 2014. The admission letter was also issued to the complainant on 17.07.2014. Except the payment of Rs.1 lakh all other payments has been directly remitted by the complainant to the first opposite party college. In fact the complainant has joined the course and completed the first year course. Thereafter the complainant had on his own left the college. On complaint made by the complainant the second opposite party returned all the school certificates. If at all any grievance against the first opposite party, the complainant ought to have filed the case before the Mauritius Court and the District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus, sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Third opposite party has also filed a version on the very same line stating that there was no specific allegation against the third opposite party in the complaint. The Complainant's father lodged a false complaint against the third opposite party before the Inspector of Police, Adayar. On enquiry the second opposite party only handed over the marks statement of the complainant. The third opposite party has nothing to do with the above complaint. The third opposite party was not the Chairman of Anna Medical College and Research Centre as alleged by the complainant. Thus, sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit filed 16 documents and they were marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16. One Mr.Renald Yesudason was examined as witness. On the side of the opposite parties along with proof affidavit 2 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.B1 and B2. One Mr.Manimaran was examined as witness on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr.Vaidhyalingam was examined as witness on the side of the 3rd opposite party.
6. The District Commission after considering the pleadings of the complainant as well as the opposite parties has framed four questions for consideration namely:
1) Whether the Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?;
2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) If there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for? Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? and
4) What reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
With regard to the 1st question the District Commission has come to the conclusion that though the complainant had joined the medical course in the Mauritius the entire transaction had taken place and payments were made in India. Therefore, the District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So far as the 2nd question regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is concerned, the District Commission has come to the conclusion that though in the complaint it has been stated that the complainant has discontinued the course since he had come to know that the Medical Institution where he had joined was not recognized by the Medical Council of India, in the complaint lodged with the police, he had stated that he discontinued the course only for his personal reasons since he was suffering from illness. Therefore, the District Commission has come to the conclusion that the complainant had not stated in the complaint lodged with the police that he had discontinued the course on the reasoning that the Institution was not recognized by the Medical Council of India. Thus, it has come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fees amount since he has discontinued the course for his personal reasons. Having come to such a conclusion the District Commission has directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation since the Institution has made the complainant to run from pillar to post to get back the original certificates. Aggrieved over the finding of the District Commission in so far as rejection of the complaint for refund of Rs.11,50,000/- towards the fees paid by the complainant in the first opposite party college at Mauritius, the present appeal has been filed by the Complainant.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the complaint lodged by the Complainant/appellant before the Commissioner of Police, dated 05.04.2017, marked as Ex.P.14, the complainant has clearly stated that he was cheated by the first opposite party college about their recognition from the Medical Council of India. When there are averments in the complaint regarding the non-recognition of the first opposite party college, by the Medical Council of India which had been stated as the reason for discontinuation of the studies of the complainant, the first opposite party college is very much bound and liable to repay the entire fee collected by them. In the said complaint, the complainant/appellant has clearly stated that the educational fee paid for the entire educational years have to be refunded to him and that the same was not refunded by the first opposite party college. As there was no response to the request made by the complainant/appellant, before the first and third opposite parties, with regard to the refund of educational fee, he lodged a complaint before the police authorities, and during the enquiry, the refund of amount, as claimed was declined by the second and third opposite parties, which warranted the complainant to approach the Commission. Further, it is statutory obligation on the part of the first opposite party college, to repay all the educational fee, which has been collected from the students, as the said college has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India, hence, the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant, as against the first opposite party is very much maintainable and the District Commission ought to have granted the relief of refund of educational fee, to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- to the complainant/appellant, as claimed by him. Thus, he sought for set aside the order of the District Commission in so far as refund of educational fee is concerned and consequently direct the 1st and 3rd opposite parties to refund the sum of Ra.11,50,000/- paid by him.
8. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Though notice has been served on the Respondents/Opposite parties 1 to 3, they were called absent.
9. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the complainant/appellant this Commission has to decide whether the complainant/appellant is entitled for refund of educational fee to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/.?, and only this question is answered in affirmative, then only the question of dealing with the merit of the case would arise.
10. In the latest judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and 8 others vs. Vinayaka Mission University and others, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) in paragraph 35, has been held as follows:-
" 35. We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Revision Petition No.3159 of 2014, who vehemently contended that post admission and having attended college for some period of time if the students leaves the college within his own volition and the seat falls vacant, which may or may not be filled by another candidate, the fee cannot be refundable as issue of is of 'post admission' and the student had left the seat 'during the course of imparting education'. Any defect/ deficiency in conferring of a degree/diploma, marks, certificates which may arise 'during the course of importing of Education' does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the afore noted judgements squarely apply and students falling in this category are not 'Consumers'.
11. In a judgment pronounced by the NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI in the case of Naveen Kumar Chaudary 2014 3 C C J D - 92 - S.N., it has been observed that:
"The Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, 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 and the complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer".
12. Some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were placed reliance in the above order of the National Commission are;-
i) In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs - Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) it has been held that: "Students are not 'consumers' and 'Education' is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering 'Service'.
ii) In Maharishi Dayanand University - Vs - Surjeet Kaur, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 159 dated 19.07.2010 it has been held: "That the Board is not a 'service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a 'consumer' and consequently complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board".
iii) In Civil Appeal Nos.17802 of 2017 and 17803 of 2017 dated 30.10.2017 in Anupama College of Engineering - Vs - Gulshan Kumar & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanad University - Vs - Surjeet Kaur, has held that: "Education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of an admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such a matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
13. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra and it is settled that the "Education is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering "Service". Therefore, it is concluded that the educational institutions are not providing service and thus the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the above point is answered against the complainant stating that the complainant himself cannot be considered as a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, I am not inclined to deal with the merits of the matter. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index: Yes/No GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2023