State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Tajender Singh vs Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute Of Medical ... on 12 December, 2022
Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022
Complaint Vs.
No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of
Medical & Health Sciences
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 04.07.2016
Date of final hearing: 07.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022
Consumer Complaint No. 04 / 2016
Dr. Tajender Singh S/o Sh. Manohar Singh
R/o THDC Colony, Dehra Khas, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Thapa, Advocate)
.....Complainant
VERSUS
Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences
Sh. Mahant Indresh Hospital
Patel Nagar, Dehradun
Through its Principal
(Through: Sh. J.P. Kansal, Advocate)
.....Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This complaint case has been filed before us by the complainant with the prayer to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,02,000/- to the complainant towards fees etc. paid by the complainant to the opposite party
- institute and also to pay Rs. 9,72,000/- to the complainant towards difference in the amount of stipend, which was paid less by the opposite 1 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences party to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. According to the complaint case, it is averred that in the year 2006, the complainant has done M.B.B.S. course from the B.R.D. Medical College Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and after completing the said course, the complainant has got himself registered with Uttaranchal Medical Council, Dehradun vide Certificate of Registration dated 25.01.2007. In the year 2011, the opposite party has issued advertisement, thereby inviting applications for two seats of MD / MS course in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in the opposite party - institute; the last date was 31.03.2011 for submission the application form and in pursuant to the said advertisement, the complainant had applied for one seat of MD /MS in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in the opposite party, which was of three year's course; the complainant was successful in the counseling and consequently, the opposite party allotted one seat of MD / MS in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology to the complainant vide letter dated 12.05.2011, where it was mentioned that during the counseling at SGRRIM & HS held on 11.05.2011, as per direction of the UCEE Board meeting held on 06.05.2011, the complainant was allotted one seat (MD / MS) in the subject Forensic Medicine and Toxicology and the complainant was required to report to the office of the institute to complete the admission formalities before 31.05.2011; the complainant completed all the required formalities of the opposite party and the opposite party has charged a total sum of Rs. 12,02,000/- from the complainant and given him admission in the said course for the year 2011-2014 batch, thereupon the admission in MD / MS course in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the complainant, the opposite party granted enrolment No. G1172608 by Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal with which the opposite 2 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences party is affiliated. The complainant was also issued admit card for appearing in the examination for the said course with the admit card, in which Roll No. 1886508 was mentioned; vide letter dated 10.09.2013, the opposite party called upon the complainant to deposit Rs. 13,35,000/- towards fee and the complainant was directed to deposit the said amount on or before 30.09.2013, failing which he would not be allowed to appear in MD University Examination to be held in the month of April / May, 2014; the complainant has deposited the above amount with the opposite party as mentioned in para No. 6 of the consumer complaint; the complainant has appeared in the Doctor of Medicine in FMT examination, 2014 and he was successful in the said examination. The complainant has also been issued degree for the said course. It is further averred that during the period of the said course, the complainant's stipend was adjusted by the opposite party - institute @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in the first year, @ Rs. 11,000/- per month in the second year and @ Rs. 12,000/- per month in the third year. It is further averred in the complaint that after completing the course, the complainant had applied with Uttarakhand Medical Council, Dehradun for registration of his MD Degree in Forensic Medicine and in response whereof, the Uttarakhand Medical Council through letter dated 31.07.2015 informed the complainant that his MD degree in Forensic Medicine obtained from opposite party - institute is not recognized by Medical Council of India till date. Upon receipt of the letter dated 31.07.2015 of Uttarakhand Medical Council, Dehradun, it transpired to the complainant that he had been cheated by the opposite party - institute by giving admission in the said course even though the opposite party was not granted permission for providing education in the said course by Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the complainant made an enquiry whereupon it came to know his knowledge that in the meeting held on 18.02.2015 in the office of Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi, it 3 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences was recorded that the Committee considered the Council Assessor's Report (November, 2014) and decided to recommend not to recognize MD - Forensic Medicine / Forensic Medicine & Toxicology qualification for 02 seats granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in respect of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences, Dehradun because (a) PG students are going to Government Mortuary, Dehradun for witnessing and assisting postmortem examination;
(b) there is no forensic related work output like examination for sexual offences, age estimation, pregnancy certification etc. from the department and no medico-legal case has been brought to the department; (c) Institute is paying stipend of Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- per month to I/II/III year residents respectively, while Government of Uttarakhand is paying stipend of Rs. 34,000/-; Rs. 38,000/- and Rs. 42,000/- per month to I/II/III year residents respectively, which are contrary to provisions of Regulation 13.3 of PG Medical Regulations, 2000 as amended; (d) No postmortem has been carried out by the faculty; (e) Other deficiencies as pointed out in the Assessment Report. Thus, the complainant has also been cheated by the opposite party - institute by paying less stipend of Rs. 10,000/- per month in the first year; Rs. 11,000/- per month in the second year and Rs. 12,000/- per month in the third year, in violation of Clause 13.3 of PG Medical Regulations, 2000. As the opposite party has paid less stipend to the complainant in violation of the Regulations and has also discriminated him from the other residents; the complainant has already paid the entire fees of the course to the opposite party and no amount is due against him towards fee etc. and the complainant has also been issued No Due Certificate by the opposite party. It is further averred in the complaint that the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand through his letter dated 19.01.2016 written to Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, Dehradun with a copy to Professor (Dr.), N.K. 4 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences Singh, Principal, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, Patel Nagar, Dehradun has declined the permission to open postmortem house in the opposite party and has stated that in view of the provision of Section 174 IPC, no private medical college can legally be accorded permission to open postmortem house. Thus, the opposite party has played with three and a half precious academic years of the complainant and has invited applications for the course for which the opposite party was not recognized and for which the complainant was provided admission and charged handsome amount towards fees etc. by the opposite party. This case is a glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - institute. Since, the MD / MS course in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the complainant is not recognized by Medical Council of India and as such the complainant is also not able to practice in the said field and all the education undertaken by him in the said course has gone waist and all his hard-work has not yield the desired result, inspite of completing the said course. The complainant has lost his three and a half valuable academic years which would have tremendous impact on his future career, thereby, the opposite party has spoiled three and a half precious academic years of the complainant and also by paying less stipend to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 12,02,000/- towards fees, Rs. 9,72,000/- towards difference in the amount of stipend, which was paid less by the opposite party to the complainant and Rs. 60,00,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is a permanent resident of Dehradun, therefore, the Commission be pleased to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,02,000/- towards fees to the complainant alongwith difference of stipend worth Rs. 9,72,000/- which was paid less by the opposite party and Rs. 60,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
5 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022
Complaint Vs.
No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of
Medical & Health Sciences
3. In the written statement, the opposite party has averred that presently the complainant is M.B.B.S. MD (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology) from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Unversity - 2014. It is also submitted that on 03.11.2010 H.N.B. Garhwal University had accorded affiliation to the institute of the opposite party for opening MD (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology) course subject to the grant of permission by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under Section 10 (A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; accordingly the opposite party had sought permission from Medical Council of India for starting the above course in the Institute. In reply thereof the Board of Governors (in Super Session of Medical Council of India) had given Letter of Intent for starting the course from the academic year 2011-12 under Section 10 (A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Thereafter, the opposite party had issued advertisement specifically indicating therein that the admission to MD (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology) course is subject to the permission obtained from Medical Council of India and Ministry of Health, Government of India. The complainant had completed initial formalities for admission to the above course and paid fees etc. It is admitted that the complainant had taken admission in the institute of opposite party for prosecuting the above course of MD (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology) 2011-14 from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University; thereupon the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal granted him enrolment No. G1172608. The complainant had got his stipend adjusted towards the dues outstanding against him and had paid the balance amount. The complainant had appeared in MD (FMT) examination conducted by H.N.B. University and had passed the course; the University issued marksheet, provision certificate and thereafter degree of MD (FMT). It is further averred that the opposite party had specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the admission to the course in question is also subject 6 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences to the approval of MCI. Thus, the complainant was well aware of the fact that the approval of MCI / Government of India was then awaited. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the opposite party cheated the complainant by not apprising true and factual position. It is further averred that on 03.03.2011 under Section 10 (A) of the India Medical Council Act, 1956 as amended as Medical Council of India had accorded permission to the opposite party for starting at its institute MD (Forensic Medicine) course with annual intake of 02 students per year with prospective effect from the academic year 2011-12. Allegations that the Medical Council of India has decided not to recognize the qualifications in question granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University are absolutely wrong. On 18.03.2015, the Medical Council of India had asked the opposite party to rectify the alleged deficiencies and on 06.04.2015 the opposite party had removed the same and also furnished additional information. In this context, the opposite party impart education in the course affiliated by H.N.B. Garhwal University, according to the course prescribed by the University as per its order directions and instructions. The University granted medical qualifications / degree to the students of this college / institution; under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 the Medical Council of India had already accorded permission to the opposite party for conducting the course at its institute. All the allegations are absolutely false, baseless and defamatory and denied, as the complainant was in default of payment of dues outstanding against him and in reply of the demand notice given by the opposite party, the complainant had requested to adjust the stipend towards dues outstanding against him. Accordingly, the stipend payable to the complainant was duly adjusted. After final settlement of account of the complainant, he was given 'No Demand Certificate' to which the complainant had consented. It is further submitted that the Director General of Medical Health and Family Welfare Uttarakhand had recommended for 7 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences the grant of permission to the opposite party to open post mortem house and also considered the recommendations, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court had regretted to accord permission to the opposite party for opening post mortem house. The opposite party was duly authorised and competent to start with the above course with annual intake of two students per year with prospective effect from the academic year 2011-12 and it has rendered best services to the complainant and still cooperative with the complainant and his another colleague. The opposite party is not at all guilty of deficiency in the service. In view of the submission, the entire story of the complainant is false, concocted, malafide, wrong and denied. The above complaint is against law and is not maintainable against the opposite party and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Replication of the complainant has been submitted stating the same version.
5. In the written arguments submitted by the opposite party, it is vehemently argued that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is rejected on this ground alone, stating that it is settled law that the student is not a consumer and the consumer court has no jurisdiction to hear and to entertain the case. Thus, the opposite party has raised a legal point that the complaint is not maintainable in the light of the cited various case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the opposite party has referred the case law Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003; Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha decided on 04.09.2009.
8 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022
Complaint Vs.
No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of
Medical & Health Sciences
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the matter is different and in this case the dispute is in regard to the stipend, which was given less by the opposite party to the complainant during competing the course of MD / MS (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology), which was less paid per month in I/II/III year.
8. The first and foremost question for consideration before us is whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not?
9. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
"The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays 9 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017; Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others, decided on 30.10.2017, has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Hon'ble National Commission in its latest judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose reported in III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC), has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services. While coming to the above conclusion, Hon'ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the 10 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022 Complaint Vs. No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra) and Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra), it is crystal clear that the appellant No. 1 - Educational Institute is neither "service provider", nor the respondent - complainant being a student is a "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question cannot be brought before the Consumer Fora.
13. In the light of the above cited case law, we are of the opinion that the opposite party in this complaint case is an Education Institute and the opposite party was not the service provider. Hence, the complaint is not legally entertainable against the opposite party - Education Institute. There is no need to consider the other points as the complaint is not legally maintainable, hence, no need to discuss other factual points of the complaint case. The complainant may file the suit or initiate proceedings before the appropriate competent court to get the above relief within a period of 6 months from today.
14. We are of the definite view, that the complaint is not maintainable, hence, liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the consumer complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11 Consumer Dr. Tajender Singh 12.12.2022
Complaint Vs.
No. 04 of 2016 Sh. Guru Ram Rai Institute of
Medical & Health Sciences
16. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member This judgment is dated, signed and pronounced today.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 12.12.2022 12