National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Institute Of Medical ... vs Ku. Arpana Sandihya Robinson on 23 November, 2010
Revision Petition No NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1187 OF 2006 (From the Order dated 14.2.2006 in Appeal No. 965/2003 of Chhattisgarh Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1. National Institute of Medical Technology Through- Its Administrative Officer Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Dr. Bachhan Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh Director, National Institute of Medical Technology Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Petitioners Versus 1. Ku. Arpana Sandihya Robinson D/o Shri H.H. Robinson R/o Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur (Chhatisgarh) 2. All India Institute of Medical Technologists 33-A, Hindustan Road, Gariahat Kolkata-700 029. Respondents REVISION PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2006 (From the Order dated 14.2.2006 in Appeal No.966/2003 of Chhattisgarh Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1. National Institute of Medical Technology Through- Its Administrative Officer Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Dr. Bachhan Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh Director, National Institute of Medical Technology Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Petitioners Versus 1. Ku. Rashmi Joseph D/o Shri Manohar Joseph R/o Katora Talab, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur (Chhatisgarh) 2. All India Institute of Medical Technologists 33-A, Hindustan Road, Gariahat Kolkata-700 029. Respondents REVISION PETITION N O. 1189 OF 2006 (From the Order dated 14.2.2006 in Appeal No.964/2003 of Chhattisgarh Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1. National Institute of Medical Technology Through- Its Administrative Officer Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Dr. Bachhan Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh Director, National Institute of Medical Technology Sector VI, Gurudwar Hall, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Petitioners Versus 1. Avinash Kumar Robinson S/o Shri H.H. Robinson R/o Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur (Chhatisgarh) 2. All India Institute of Medical Technologists 33-A, Hindustan Road, Gariahat Kolkata-700 029. Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate For Mr. R.K. Bhawanani, Advocate For the Respondents : N E M O PRONOUNCED ON: 23.11.2010 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT National Institute of Medical Technology and Dr. Bachan Singh, Director, National Institute of Medical Technology which were Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 respectively, have filed the present Revision Petitions against the common Order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) in three Appeals being Appeal No.965/2003, Appeal No.966/2003 and 964/2003 directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short, District Forum) in three complaints filed by Kumari Arpana Sandihya Robinson (complaint No.41/98), Kumari Rashmi Joseph (Complaint No.39/98) and Avinash Kumar Robinson (Complaint No.40/98). Since the facts in these Revision Petitions are similar and point of law is the same, we propose to dispose of them by common order as has been done by the State Commission.
Case of the Complainants in brief is that the Petitioner National Institute of Medical Technology which was Opposite Party NO.1 before the District Forum provides one year diploma course for D.M.L.T. (Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology) for those who are matriculate. Complainants had taken admission and paid registration fee Rs.500/-, Tuition fee 1920/- practical fee Rs.2400/- and examination fee Rs.154/-, monthly fee Rs.200/- for the whole year upto June, 1994 i.e. Rs.2400/- , in all Rs.4,974/- was paid. That the Complainants completed the course successfully and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Dr. Bachan Singh, Director of Petitioner No.1 orally informed the Complainants that they were successful in the examination and assured them that Diploma Certificates would be issued to them soon after the Certificates were received from the All India Institute of Medical Technologists (Opposite Party No.3) which used to conduct the examination. That the Complainants approached the Petitioners for issuance of the Certificate but Petitioners failed to issue the Certificate. Because of non-issuance of the Certificate the Complainants suffered as they were not able to do any work and ultimately filed complaints before the District Forum seeking directions against the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3 to issue Diploma Certificates to the Complainants, and refund the amount of fee and expenditure of Rs.7220/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
On being served, the Petitioners entered appearance and took the stand that the Petitioners Institute was being run by Mahatma Paramhans Sikshan Samitee (Mahatma Paramhans Education Society). That the Complainants were unsuccessful in examination conducted by the Opposite Party No.3 All India Institute of Medical Technologists. That it had been made clear that examination was to be conducted by Opposite Party No.3 and mark sheets and results were to be given by the Opposite PartyNo.3. The result of the said examination was declared in October, 1994. Due to some dispute having arisen in Petitioners Society Mahatma Paramhans Society, the mark sheets could not be directly given by the Petitioners to Complainants. Hence, no objection certificates were issued in favour of Complainants. Result sheet was to be obtained by the complainants from the All India Institute of Medical Technologist - Opposite Party No.3. Tuition fee and other charges were taken according to the norms of the Institute and all facilities were provided to the Complainants. Complainants were informed in October, 1994 that they had failed in the examination. It was prayed that the complaints filed by the Complainants be dismissed as they were vexatious in nature to harass the Petitioners The District Forum allowed the complaints on 29th August, 2001 and directed the opposites parties to jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs.7220/- charged as fee etc. and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to each of the Complainants.
Being aggrieved, Opposite Parties filed separate Appeals before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the Appeals, set aside the order of the District Forum and remanded the matters to the District Forum to decide the complaints afresh on the issue of recognition and affiliation given by the appropriate Government and as to whether Complainants were entitled to refund of the fee and compensation once they had been declared fail. The District Forum after remand, reiterated its earlier view by a common order dated 30th October, 2002. Petitioners and All India Institute of Medical Technologists Opposite Party No.3 were made liable jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs.7,220/- charged as fee etc. and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the Complainants.
Aggrieved against the order dated 30th October, 2002 passed by the District Forum, the Petitioners as well as All India Institute of Medical Technologists Opposite Party No.3 filed separate Appeals before the State Commission.
State Commission by the impugned Order has allowed the Appeal filed by the All India Institute of Medical Technologists Opposite Party No.3 and absolved it of its liability to either refund the fee or to pay any compensation.
State Commission partly allowed the appeals filed by the Petitioners and modified the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the order of the District Forum regarding refund of the examination fees etc. amounting to Rs.7,220/- to each of the Complainants. Remaining order of the District Forum was upheld. State Commission further directed Petitioners to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to each of the complainants.
Being aggrieved, Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petitions.
Counsel for the Parties have been heard at length. Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners alone could not be held responsible for deficiency in service. That Opposite Party No.3 was also partly deficient in service and liable to pay compensation to the Complainants.
It is not in dispute that the Complainants had taken admission in the Petitioners Institute in Diploma Course titled as Diploma in Medical Lab Technology. It is also not in dispute that the All India Institute of Medical Technologists - Opposite Party No.3 which had granted affiliation to the Petitioners, had conducted the examination. Allegation of the Complainants was that they had been orally informed by the Petitioner No.2 that they were successful in the examination conducted by the Opposite Party No.3. But in fact, they did not succeed in the said examination. Perusal of the written statement filed by the Petitioners reveals that the Petitioners had failed to intimate about the result as well as supply the mark sheet to the Complainants in view of the dispute having arisen in the Society running the Petitioners Institute. From the correspondence exchanged between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3, it is clear that All India Institute of Medical Technologists were to conduct the examination and for that purpose Petitioners were to remit to the Opposite Party No.3 examination and membership fee @ Rs.300/- per candidate. Letters placed on the record also indicate that the Petitioners because of financial difficulties, did not remit the examination and membership fee @ Rs.300/- per candidate to Opposite Party No.3. The Petitioners sought time from Opposite Party No.3 to make the payment. Since the amount was not received by the Opposite Party No.3, it withheld the issuance of mark sheet etc. to the concerned candidates. From the material placed on record it is also clear that on account of default in remitting the examination and membership fee of Rs.300/- per candidate by the Petitioners to the Opposite Party No3, Opposite Party No.3 did not send the market sheet to the Petitioners. Later on, Opposite Party No.3 supplied the same to concerned candidates. From this, it is clear that the fault lay squarely on the shoulders of the Petitioners which conducted the course. The mark sheets and results were not sent/conveyed to the Complainants as the Petitioners had failed to remit the requisite amount to the Opposite Party No.3 for conducting the examination.
There was no direct nexus between the Complainants candidates and the All India Institute of Medical Technologists Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 had neither expressly or impliedly extended any assurance to the candidates that it would send mark sheet to them directly. State Commission has rightly held that the Petitioners were deficient in rendering service and therefore, were liable to pay the compensation to the Complainants.
All India Institute of Medical Technologists Opposite Party No.3 was in no way deficient in rendering service.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these Revisions Petitions and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER