State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Institute Of Medical Transcription, vs M.R. Paulson Joseph, S/O Poovathingal ... on 30 October, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 374/2007 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. 658/2001 of District Trissur) Institute of Medical Transcription Dr.B.A.Kabeer M.R.David Raj C.G.Surendran Vs. M.R.Paulson Joseph and Others BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 30 Oct 2010 ORDER Disposed as Allowed in Part
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 374/07 & 375/07
JUDGMENT DATED: 30-10-2010
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
APPEAL No. 374/07
APPELLANTS
1.Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur, Rep. by Chairman, Dr. B.A. Kabeer.
2. Dr. B.A. Kabeer, Chairman, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
3. M.R. David Raj, Director, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M. G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
4. C.G. Surendran, Director, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.R. Joshy) Vs RESPONDENTS
1. M.R. Paulson Joseph, S/o Poovathingal Joseph, Poovathingal House, Kandassankadavu P.O., Thrissur P.O.
2. Johnes P.M, S/o Mani P.I., Pulikkottil House, Kizhur P.O., Kunnamkulam, Thrissur District.
3. Santhosh. U., S/o Unnikrishnan, Pazha Pisharam, Sreekrishnapuram P.O. Palghat District.
4. Suja Vijayan, Sheeja Bhavan, P.O. Koratty South, Koratty Kizhakkummuri Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District.
5. Reshma Loknath, Kozhipparambil House, Cheloor Mana Quarters, Poothole, Thrissur District.
6. Jessy Rajeev, Sushil Bhavan, Vengassery, Ottappalam, Palaghat.
7. Devi Bhooshan, Karappurath House, Kizhakumpattukara, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur District.
8. Jose. J. Mekkat, S/o M.T. Mekkat, Mekkattukulam House, Anjur Village, Mundur, Thrissur District.
9. Anison Joseph, "Ani Sadan", Kanjirakode P.O., Wadakkanchery Village, Thrissur District.
10. Rexy Varghese, "Nigunjam", Gandhi Nagar, Peringavu P.O., Cheroor Village, Thrissur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Krishnakumar) APPEAL No. 375/07 APPELLANTS
1. Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur, Rep. by Chairman, Dr. B.A. Kabeer.
2. Dr. B.A. Kabeer, Chairman, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
3. M.R. David Raj, Director, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M. G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
4. C.G. Surendran, Director, Institute of Medical Transcription, Veenus Complex, M.G. Road, West Fort, Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.R. Joshy) Vs RESPONDENTS
1. Gireesan E.P., Elangallor Mana, P.O. Thalore, Thrissur District.
2. Santhosh K.K., Kandampully House, Chemmannur P.O., Kanippayyur, Thrissur District.
3. Jana A. Kumar, Nellikkuthil House, Poochinnippadam, Urakam P.O., Thrissur District.
4. Joshi A.P., Arakkal House, M6-14, Asok Nagar, Kanjani Road, Ayyanthole P.O., Thrissur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Krishnakumar) COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appeals are filed over the common order in OP 658/01 and OP 246/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13-04-2000 to the complainants 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 and also to the 4th complainant with interest at the above rate from 31-05-2000 and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- each and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants together. In OP No. 658/2001 the appellants are also under orders to pay Rs. 16,000/- each with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01-05-2000 to complainants 2 and 4 and Rs. 15,000/- to complainants 1 and 3 with interest at 12% per annum from 01-05-2000 and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to each of the petitioners and Rs. 2,000/- as cost to all the petitioners together.
2. Appeal 374/2007 is filed over the order in OP 658/2001 and Appeal 375/07 if filed over the order in OP 246/2002.
3. In OP 658/01 the complainants who are 10 in Nos. have alleged that on seeing the advertisements of the appellants with respect to the course of Medical Transcription, they joined the course on payment of fee of Rs. 20,000/-. The period of the course was 4 months. Placements were assured with a salary of Rs. 5,000/- to 20,000/- at Thrissur to all successful candidates on an additional payment of Rs. 10,000/-. The same was mentioned in the brochure. In the advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily dated 19-01-2000 it was also mentioned that the first opposite party Institute is affiliated to AAMT (American Association of Medical Transcription), which was false. After completion of the course the complainants offered Rs. 10,000/- each for placement. When the opposite parties declined to accept the amount and did not honour the promise to provide placements the complaint was filed seeking for the return of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- each paid and also for compensation of Rs. 2,000/- each and costs.
4. In OP 246/2002 it is alleged that the complainants 1 and 3 paid Rs. 15,000/- each and petitioners 2 to 4 paid Rs.16,000/- each as fee by instalments. In the month of May 2000 the first batch who had completed the course lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police alleging that they were not given placements assured and that they were cheated. The police registered a crime against the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties stopped the training programme in May 2000. The course would have been complete in June 2000. Although repeatedly requested opposite parties did not continue the training course. They have also sought for return of the amount paid with compensation.
5. The opposite parties/appellants have totally denied the allegations. It is pointed out that selection in the field of Medical Transcription highly depended on the personal skill of the candidates. Those who remitted the fee for placement assistance got proper assistance for recruitment all over India. It is stated that the complainants in OP 658/2001 have not remitted or offered the additional fee for placement assistance. It is contended that the complainants in OP 658/2001 were given intensive training and that they successfully completed the course. Hence they are not entitled to get back the fee paid. It is further alleged that the 10th complainant after the course was working in the opposite party Institution as a faculty member. She was sent for training to KGISL Coimbatore along with 5 others. The first petitioner was working in the opposite party Institution. The 10th petitioner later left after she gave birth to a child. It is denied that placement assurance was given and that they will be provided employment at Thrissur. The additional fee for placement ought to have been paid at the time of admission itself for suggesting campus recruitments. The complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur and the CC 26/01 before the CJM Court, Thrissur as per the order of the High Court of Kerala, the proceedings were quashed. The above fact has been suppressed in the complaint. It is denied that the complainants in OP 258/01 had offered Rs. 10,000/- each for placement. Several institutions had sought for recruitment of the candidates for their units. It is further alleged that the complainants in OP 246/02 stopped attending the programme at their own volition. It is denied that the opposite parties stopped the programme. The American Association for Medical Transcription has approved and the certificate was issued to the second opposite party, Managing Partner. The institution is still in existence.
6. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. P1 to P17 and P24 (in OP 658/01) and Exts. P18 to P14 (in OP 246/02) and Exts R1 to R6.
7. The Forum has rightly noted relying on documents produced that the opposite parties had advertised that the Institution is affiliated to the American Association of Medical Transcription (AAMT) vide Ext.P17. It was also found that relying on Ext.P16 communication from AAMT in response to the enquiry by one of the complainants that AAMT is not providing affiliation to any institutions, but only providing membership to individuals. It was also found that it is mentioned in P15 the brochure that placement is assured on payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Some of the complainants (5 in number) have also produced the original certificates issued to them vide Ext. P1 to P5 wherein AAMT membership number is noted under the signature and name of the Chairman of the Institute who is the second opposite party. In appeal appellants have produced the certificate of membership issued to the second opposite party in his individual capacity. It would show that the American Association for Medical Transcription (AAMT) is mentioned as incorporated at the state of California. It is the contention of the appellants that the advertisement did not contain any statement that the institute is affiliated to AAMT. It is further contended that the complainants have not raised any allegations against the quality of the course conducted. Hence it is not proper to order return of the amount of fees collected. It is stressed that the complainants in OP 246/02 only stopped attending the course and that the opposite parties did not stop the course or close down the institution.
8. We find that there is no material to support the contention of the appellants that it was mentioned that Rs. 10,000/- towards placement assistance should be paid at the time of joining the course. It is also not probable that the complainants did not offer the amounts for placement assistance. Evidently, the advertisement that carried the statement that the Institution is affiliated to AAMT was misleading. It is also pertinent to note that even after filing the complaint ie, OP 648/2001 the opposite parties did not offer placement. The above would show that the opposite parties were not in a position to provide placements. Hence the announcement that the placements are assured mentioned in the brochure amounted to unfair trade practice. Ofcourse the complainants in OP 246/2002 might have stopped attending the course after institution of the criminal proceedings by the complainants in OP 658/2001. The opposite parties have produced Ext.R1 order in CC No. 26/2001 that would show that in pursuance of the order of the High Court, criminal proceedings, ie, CC 26/2001 was closed. All the same, we find that the contention of the appellants that the complainants had no allegations with respect to the content and quality of the course has to be taken into account so far as the complainants in OP No. 658/2001 is concerned. It was also pointed out by the Counsel for the respondents that the original certificates produced before the Court by 5 of the complainants have not been taken back as the same is of no use. It was pointed out by the Counsel for the appellants that the second opposite party is a retired Professor in Forensic Medicine from Medical College, Kottayam. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we find that it would not be proper to direct to return the entire amount of fee collected in the case of complainants in OP 658/2001 as well as in the case of the complainants in OP 246/2002. Hence the order of the Forum is modified as follows:
The opposite parties would be liable to refund Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants in OP 658/2001 with interest as stated in the order. The appellants would refund Rs. 8,000/- each to complainants 2 and 4 and Rs. 7,500/- each to complainants 1 and 3 with interest as mentioned in the order of the Forum in the case of the complainants in OP 246/2002. The direction to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to each of the complainants in OP No. 658/2001 and OP 246/2002 is set aside. The direction to pay cost is sustained. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainants would be entitled for interest at 15% per annum from today ie, 30-10-2010.
In the result, the appeals are allowed in part as above.
The office will forward the LCRs to the Forum along with a copy of this order urgently.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Sr [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT