State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Nitin Kaushik S/O Dr. Ram Nath ... vs M.D. Oswal Cancer Hospital, on 17 December, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009
Date of institution: 9.6.2009
Date of Decision:17.12.2013
Dr. Nitin Kaushik s/o Dr. Ram Nath Kaushik, resident of House No. 254,
Housing Board Colony, Ambala Cantt.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. M.D. Oswal Cancer Hospital, G.T. Road, Sherpur Bye Pass,
Ludhiana, Punjab, through its President.
2. Director, National Board of Examination, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Argued By:-
For the complainant : Sh. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Bhupinder Banga, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 (12) of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties/respondents on the allegations that with the objective of imparting higher education to the medical students in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 2 India, the National Board of Examinations (in short "NBE") was constituted and accordingly, qualifying examinations are being held by respondent No. 2 on all India basis as all the admissions are subject to the control of respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that the eligibility criteria for entering into DNB programme is Graduation Degree in Medical Sciences after which by virtue of admission in the Post Graduate in any of the fields of the Medical Sciences, a candidate specializes in a specific field, which contributes to his knowledge and improves his stature in the medical and social fraternity, the course of three years and after successful completion of the said course, Post Graduation Degree in the specific field is granted. To see that quality education is imparted, respondent No. 2 has adopted method of granting accreditation to the institutes subject to fulfilling the conditions/norms precedent for accreditation as settled from time to time and accordingly, accredited institutes admitted the student, who passed the DNB-CET exam held annually by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 had called for applications of eligible students for DNB-CET examination to be held in June, 2007, the complainant appeared in that examination and he had qualified that test. Respondent No. 1 called for applications from eligible candidates, who had called for DNB Programme and the complainant being eligible for the DNB programme appeared in a number of institutes, which included respondent No. 1 and keeping the stature of respondent No. 1 being one of premium institutes of the nation; the complainant opted for respondent No. 1. He was called for interview on 15.7.2007 conducted by respondent No. 1 under the supervision Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 3 of respondent No. 2 and he was invited to get admission in the field of Orthopaedics on provisional basis subject to registration in the Department of Orthopedic by the NBE and that he was directed to join on or before 15.9.2007. He was to get stipend @ Rs. 13,000/- for the first year, Rs. 14,000/- for the 2nd year and Rs. 15,000/- for the 3rd year. As per the directions of respondent No. 1 he deposited Rs. 3.5 lacs. After joining he again inquired from the officials of respondent No. 1 about his registration with respondent No. 2 and stating that their application is under process but stated that it will be registered and they will get his registration done. However, in the month of July, 2008, the complainant came to know that respondent No. 1 played a fraud with his carrier and his life, when he came to know that vide letter dated 9.7.2007 addressed to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 specifically prohibiting respondent No. 1 not to register any candidate as accreditation granted by respondent No. 2 for running DNB programme has expired in one of the specialities in which the complainant was enrolled i.e. Orthopaedics and he approached respondent No. 1 to release from the programme so that he may get his admission somewhere else but at that time it was difficult for him to get admission in any institute and he was to prepare fresh and compete with freshers. The Ops also refused to pay the admission fee of Rs. 3.5 lacs deposited by him with OP No. 1. Since they have played with the carrier of the complainant, therefore, he has entitled to Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation as cost and lost of time, money and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 4
2. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant had earlier filed the complaint before the Hon'ble State Commission, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 7.12.2010 by this Hon'ble Court and application for restoration was filed after about 9 months; the complainant is well known that his appointment is provisional subject to registration for DNB Board, New Delhi after renewal of reaccredidation, which is clearly mentioned in Selection letter dated 20.7.2007 issued to the complainant; that the result in the DNB is effective for 3 years and complainant cleared the examination in July, 2007 so he can get admission till 2010 and the complainant/petitioner was paid for his service as per the agreement and that the complaint is without basis, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been admitted that admission in the DNB programme are subject to the control of respondent No. 2, which is the controlling authority. The complainant is admitting that he was given the admission provisionally; only fee of Rs. 3.5 lacs as prescribed was taken by respondent No. 1, therefore, he is not entitled to get the refund of the same. As and when the complainant submitted his resignation, it was accepted, therefore, there is no harassment to the complainant in any manner. The complaint is without basis and the same be dismissed.
3. The parties were produced evidence alongwith the complaint and written statement.
4. In support of his allegations, the complainant had produced in evidence affidavit of Dr. Nitin Kaushik Ex. C-1/A, Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 5 certificate of DNB-CET exam-2007 Ex. C-1, selection letter Ex. C-2, provisional admission letter Ex. C-3, duties pertaining to patient care & academics Ex. C-4, salary register Ex. C-5 to C-8, letter for refund of admission fee Ex. C-9, certificate Ex. C-10, Registration letter Ex. C-11, letter of NBE dt. 9.7.2007 Ex. C-12. On the other hand, OP No. 1 had produced in evidence selection letter dt. 20.7.07 Ex. OP-1/1, last pay slip Ex. OP-1/2, resignation letter dt. 21.8.08 Ex. OP-1/3, reply to notice dt. 8.9.2008 Ex. OP-1/4.
5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant Sh. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate and counsel for opposite party No. 1 Sh. Bhupinder Banga, Advocate and have carefully gone through the allegations in the complaint, reply, evidence, documents brought on the file.
6. The first point for determination between the parties is whether the respondents/Ops played unfair trade practice while giving admission to the complainant in the Post Graduate Orthopaedic Course with respondent No. 1.
7. It stands admitted between the parties that Post Graduate Admissions are controlled by respondent No. 2 and any institute, who wants to give admission in any Post Graduate course, they should get its approval from respondent No. 2. It has been admitted by respondent No. 1 that they had given admission to the complainant in Post Graduate course although it was provisional but it is to be seen whether they had accreditation from respondent No. 2 to give the admission to the complainant in that course. The respondents in their evidence has brought on the record the letter of respondent No. 1, Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 6 which is Selection Letter dated 20.7.2007 in which it has been written provisional, subject to registration by NBE Board, New Delhi after renewal of re-accreditation, Ex. OP-1/2 is the slip of stipend, Ex. OP- 1/3 is the resignation letter of the complainant; Ex. OP-1/4 is reply to the legal notice. Against these documents, the complainant has placed on the record Ex. C-1 his result certificate of DNB-CET-2007, which he has qualified and Ex. C-2 is the Selection Letter issued by OP No. 1. Ex. C-3 is another letter vide which he has been given provisional admission, Ex. C-4 is the Duties pertaining to Patient Care & Academics, Ex. C-5, C-6, C-7 & C-8 are the stipend receipts. Ex. C-9 is the application for refund of admission fee, Ex. C-11 is another letter vide which the complainant resign from the post of DNB resident in the Department of Orthopaedics, Ex. C-12 is a letter dated 9.7.2007 vide which National Board of Examination has written to respondent/OP No.1 that the accreditation granted by NBE for running DNB programme in the following specialities had expired, which include Orthopaedics, therefore, before giving the admission to the complainant on 20.7.2007 vide which Selection Letter was given to the complainant, respondent No. 1 had already received a letter from the NBE that their accreditation for Orthopaedic course had expired. Although they had stated in the Selection letters that it is provisional but nothing on the record that after receiving the letter from NBE regarding expiry of their DNB Programme in Orthopaedic they had applied for its renewal, therefore, OP/respondent No. 1 had kept the complainant in dark by giving the provisional admission when they did not apply to the National Board of Examination to enrol Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 7 them for Orthopaedic Course with National Board of Examination, therefore, certainly, there is unfair trade practice on the part of respondent/OP No. 1 to give the admission to the Post Graduate Course in Medical Sciences when they were not eligible for that as per the instructions of the NBE. Even after the resignation given by the complainant they did not refund the admission fee, therefore, certainly, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the admission fee, which was charged by OP No. 1 when it was not having any accreditation given by NBE to undertake the Post Graduate Course in Orthopaedic, in that way they had wasted the one year precious time of the Doctor, otherwise, he would have taken the admission in any other College having accreditation with NBE. Actually, complaint was dismissed in default. However, vide order dated 21.7.2011, it was restored.
8. Therefore, complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to:-
(a) refund of fee of Rs. 3.5 lacs deposited with OP No. 1;
(b) compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for mental tension, harassment, wastage of his previous year and for adopting unfair trade practice,
(c) Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
OP/respondent No. 1 is directed to comply with the abovesaid direction within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which then proceedings under Section 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act can be initiated against OP No. 1. There is no deficiency on the part of respondent/OP No. 2, as such, complaint against respondent/OP No. 2 is dismissed.
Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2009 8
9. The arguments in this complaint were heard on 5.12.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
10. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 17, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill) as Member