State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sreejith.S vs Ifcr India Pvt. Ltd. on 20 January, 2017
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.N0.30/09 JUDGMENT DATED :20.01.2017 PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER COMPLAINANT Sreejit.S S/o.Sadasivan Pillai, Vrindavana, Edakkulangara.P.O Karunagappally, Kollam District Pin - 690 562, Kerala (By Adv.Sri.K.N.Ajith Kumar) Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES 1.M/s.Inter -Ed Faculty of Clinical, Research India Pvt Ltd, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director Anil Joseph, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 2. Ajil Joseph, Promoter, Chairman & Managing Director, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 3. Anitha Anil, Director, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 4. Dr.N.Ramachandran, Executive Director, Pro Vice Chancellor, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 5.Dr.S.Dailkwad, Executive Director, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 (Deleted) 6. Dr.Justice K.Narayana Kurup, Hy.Chancellor / Ext.Director, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 (Deleted) 7.Dr.K.Gopakumar, Vice Chancellor, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 (Deleted) 8.Dr.N.Ramachandran, Pro Vice Chancellor, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road,Cochin - 682016 (Deleted) 9. Dr.Alice Kuruvila, Academic Dean, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 (Deleted) 10.Br.Sunil Joseph, LF Campus, 77/714, SA Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin - 682020 and Regd.Office 36/2583, Diwans Road, Cochin - 682016 11. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kannankeri Estate, Shanmugam Road, Ernakulam (Deleted) 12. The State of Kerala, Rep.by Secretary to Government, Technical Education, Kerala State, Thiruvananthapuram (Deleted) 13. The Union of India, Rep.by the Secretary to Central Government, Ministry of Human Resources / Technical Education, New Delhi (Deleted) (OPS 1 to 3 by Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar & P.Babu) JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the amended complaint in brief are the following. The complainant came across an attractive advertisement in the name of the first opposite party offering research training programme in association with York College of Industry and Technology of Canada. First opposite party would arrange finance for the training without any collateral security. Further, they offered stipend of Rs.4500/- per month during the period of training. On completion of the training programme post graduate diploma in Clinical Research by York College of Industry & Technology was offered with placement by carrier development cell of first opposite party as a CRA with minimum salary of INR 15,000- 20,000/- per month. Further the training fee of Rs.4,00,000/- will have to be paid back only after placement is confirmed. Complainant applied for application form and prospectus on going through which complainant had no suspicion as highly reputable persons were shown as promoters, directors, vice-chancellor etc. They were directly involved in the promotion of the institution.
2. Complainant was directed to appear for an interview by letter dated 21.03.2007. Later complainant was directed to report for training on 26.03.2007. He was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as registration fee. Complainant reported for training with much expectation. Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.15,000/- at the time when he reported for training contrary to his expectations. It was further blow to him when he was asked to execute an agreement. He was actually compelled to sign the agreement under undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. Copy of the said agreement was not issued to the complainant. It is reliably learnt now that the so called agreement enabled the first opposite party to draw an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of training fees with liability of repayment of the amount with interest cast upon the complainant. The first opposite party never cared to give valid or proper training. After six months they conducted some evaluation in the form of examinations and the complainant was compelled to appear for such frivolous examinations. The result of so called examinations conducted in the last week of April 2008 was promised to be published on 20.06.2008. But the result actually came on 26.09.2008. The complainant was said to have scored 4th rank among the 20 candidates. On 13.01.2009 complainant received a circular stating that mark list and certificates will start arriving soon from Prince Edward College, Canada. On seeing the new name of the college complainant became suspicious of the offer made by the first opposite party. On verification on internet, he was able to find York University in Canada. On thorough check up it could be seen that the so called York College of Industry and Technology, Toronto is a fake name engaged in fraudulent short term courses in the aid of some other agencies in Canada and is not a valid reputed college. It had no affiliation with any university. The Prince Edward College is another fake name. Prince Edward is a remote area where there is no such college and it is not authorised by Prince Edward Island to offer degrees. Complainant got authentic letter from the National Co-ordinator of Canada that it is fake and none of their programmes have been accredited or approved by Canadian Ministry or Department of Education.
3. The first opposite party charged Rs.4,00,000/- on assurance that they will provide an internationally recognised and reputed degree or diploma. Both the York College and Prince Edward College were fake. Thus the first opposite party failed to keep the promise. No expenditure was incurred by the first opposite party to conduct the course undergone by the complainant. Unconscionable rate of fees was charged by offering degree from a fake foreign college. Thus they committed breach of trust. Hence the first opposite party was not entitled to receive any amount by way of fees or expenditure. Complainant actually lost two years of his prime time of his career. The total misrepresentation to the complainant will tantamount to unfair trade practice and is deficiency in service. The total damages caused to the complainant can never be equated in money. Complainant incurred heavy loss and mental agony which can never be quantified. He sustained social humiliation and lost two valuable years. The opposite parties are vicariously responsible and are liable to compensate the complainant for all such things. Hence the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- including the amount needed to close the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- availed for the purpose of paying fees for the course.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed joint version and opposite parties 6 & 7 filed separate version. Opposite parties 5 to 9 and 11 to 13 were deleted from party array. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no defect or deficiency in service or unfair and illegal practice alleged in the complaint. It was not the 11th opposite party Bank of India alone that had sanctioned loans for the students of IFCR across India. Almost all banks had sanctioned loans to various students enrolled for this training programme. Opposite parties 1 to 3 will recommend and assist the candidates for availing educational loans at the request of the students. On completion of training programme award of post graduate diploma in clinical research by York College of Industry and Technology and placement by career development cell of the first opposite party as CRA were subject to their performance conduct and work appraisal. Further training fee of Rs.4,00,000/- will have to be paid back to the bank. The complainant accepted the actual terms and conditions mentioned in the application form. The allegations that the opposite parties committed fraud, misrepresentation deception and undue influence and breach of trust to swindle money by fabrication of document etc are not correct. All the names mentioned in the communication material of the first opposite party are genuine and all of them did have ongoing relationship and direct or indirect involvement in the functioning of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is a coaching centre incorporated in 2006 under the Companies Act 1956. IFCR has been conducting post graduate diploma in clinical research based on curriculum advised by its academic council comprised of eminent personalities in the field of clinical research like Dr.Alis Kuruvila, Dr.K.Gopakumar etc. York College of Industry & Technology is an institution recognised by the Ministry of Training Colleges & Universities of Ontario Canada, which was in the field for 18 years.
5. The procedure for admission payment of fees etc are published in the prospectus, application form etc. The allegation that the direction to pay fees of Rs.15,000/- was a blow to the complainant is made with malafide intentions. There was no compulsion to pay fees on the complainant. He was fully aware that he had to pay fees in accordance with the fee schedule mentioned in the prospectus. Receipt was issued in acknowledgment of remittance of fees. It is incorrect to say that complainant was compelled to sign an agreement on undue influence fraud and misrepresentation and that copy of the said agreement was not issued to the complainant. The complainant successfully completed his training offered by the first opposite party and obtained a job based on the same in the clinical research department of the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. While so the bank of India initiated recovery proceedings when the complainant violated the terms of the loan agreement. He had to repay the educational loan amount once his placement was confirmed. Complainant joined training with the opposite party after realising all the procedures of admission and formalities.
6. At the time of commencement of the training programme YCIT had all relevant approvals. When the arrangement was made by IFCR with YCIT for adopting their curriculum, YCIT had the relevant approvals. IFCR received information on the matter of closing of YCIT by their letter dated 10.09.2007. They informed that due to some domestic issues they had decided to cease operation in Ontario, Canada. But for fulfilling the obligations to students they have transferred their rights of various programmes to a number of institutions. The clinical research programme of YCIT was transferred to Prince Edward College (PEC) in Prince Edward Island, Canada. It was further informed that they had talked with PEC to supply curriculum as done by YCIT. The allegation that PEC is not a recognised higher education institution in Canada and are not offering course like PGDCR is a misstatement. Since clinical research programme was to be used outside, in a distance learning format as per the Laws of Prince Edward Island no registration under the Private Training Schools Act was required. The complainant after obtaining successful training and obtaining diploma in very highly specialised field from the first opposite party is blaming them which is totally unfair. The first six months covered full time training and part time work and the second six months covered full time work at an external institution and online continuing research programme and thereby complainant was fully equipped with work experience as well as training at the end of the programme. As per the information of the opposite party complainant was appointed by the project wing of Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and is granted the post as a clinical research co-ordinator. It was based on his knowledge of good clinical practice and various aspects of conducting clinical trials language proficiency and computer knowledge, the selection was made. The allegation that first opposite party never cared to give valid or proper training and the complainant was compelled to appear for frivolous examinations is not sustainable. In the resume submitted for seeking appointment in the RCC, Thiruvananthapuram complainant had stated that he was having 8 months work experience as a clinical research co-ordinator in the Manipal Acunova Clinical Research Centre, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore & six months academic experience as a CRA trainee at the first opposite party IFCR. Thus it is clear that complainant got appointment based on the training imparted by the first opposite party. After training and clinical research candidates are invited for one week International Orientation Programme. Registration fee of Rs.15,000/- is payable by the trainee applicant. The training fee of Rs.4,00,000/- is payable in three instalments of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/-. Every clinical researcher trainee is paid stipend of Rs.4500/- per month. The complainant did not approach the consumer commission with clean hands. The complaint is filed with the ulterior motive of tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties and for unlawful financial gain. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
7. The sixth opposite party contended that his role was only ceremonial in character conferring awards and accreditation achieved by York College of Industry & Technology students and the practical role of representing York College at YCIT official functions and had nothing to do with the management curriculum fees structure or arrangement of loan or any matter connected with the management and conduct of the courses offered by the first opposite party. He has relinquished his honorary chancellorship with immediate effect on 03.11.2006. As per the allegations in the complaint complainant enrolled himself for the course after the relinquishment of honorary chancellorship by the sixth opposite party. Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the sixth opposite party.
8. The 11th opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer and no service was required to be performed by the 11th opposite party. Hence there is no consumer dispute between the parties. The 11th opposite party granted Rs.4,00,000/- as educational loan. There was no obligation upon the bank to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the IFCR was an approved college. The RBI guidelines stipulate that no meritorious student should be denied loan from the bank. So the bank considered the request of the complainant and extended financial assistance to him. The choice of college or Institute and the course to be pursued are purely the personal choice of the student and the bank has no role to play. Complainant is bound to repay the loan received by him after executing necessary documents, together with interest. Complainant is not entitled to any relief as against the 11th opposite party.
9. On the allegations in the complaint and the contentions raised by the opposite parties the following points arise for determination.
1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or any of them?
2. If so whether the complainant is entitled to realise compensation and what is the quantum?
10. The evidence consists of the depositions of complainant as PW1 and the second opposite party as DW1 and Exts. A1 to A14 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B13 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
After the entire evidence was recorded, arguments were heard.
Point No.1
11. According to the complainant attracted by the advertisements in various media regarding the training programme in association with York College of Industry & Technology, Canada and impressed by the reputation of the office bearers of the first opposite party institution, the complainant applied for application and prospectus of the training programme relating to post graduate diploma in clinical research by York College of Industry & Technology. In response complainant got Ext.A1 offer letter from the first opposite party dated 21.03.2007. Complainant was told that he should undertake all research works assigned to him by the first opposite party. He will also have to undergo research training programme offered by the first opposite party in association with York College of Industry & Technology, Canada. That included periodic assessment and evaluation of topics relevant to clinical research as required by YCIT, Canada. First opposite party would arrange the finance for his training programme without any collateral security. He was offered research stipend of Rs.4500/- per month during his training period. He was told that on successful completion of the training programme he would be awarded PGDCR by YCIT, Canada and offered placement by the career development cell of the first opposite party as a CRA with minimum starting salary of INR 15,000- 20,000/- per month based on his performance conduct and work appraisal, into a research organisation having association with the first opposite party. Ext.A1 further stated that the training fee INR 4,00,000/- will have to be paid back after the placement of the complainant was confirmed, in monthly instalments. Even if the placement offered is not accepted, the training fee was still payable to the bank. Ext.A1 specifically stated that the complainant will have to enter into a separate agreement with the first opposite party on the above terms on accepting the offer of selection. Ext.A14 is the copy of the agreement executed between the complainant and the second opposite party dated 18.12.2006. It contains the conditions mentioned in the offer letter. It is also provided that in case any dispute or difference arises out of or in connection with the agreement, it shall be referred to mediation at the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation and in accordance with its then current mediation rules and as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the venue will be Ernakulam.
12. As PW1 complainant admitted that he signed Ext.B1 application submitted to the first opposite party. He admitted receipt of Ext.A1offer letter the contents of which is already referred to. PW1 admitted that he joined the course after satisfying himself with the conditions in Exts. A1 & A2. He knew that registration fee would have to be remitted. The allegation in the complaint is that the payment of registration fee was the first shock to him. He cannot raise this complaint in view of Ext.A1 and his own admissions. The same conclusion is to be taken regarding the execution of the Ext.A2 agreement. The requirement of registration fee was made known to him in advance. Complainant has a case that he was compelled to execute Ext.A2 under undue influence fraud and misrepresentation. This allegation even if true, the Forum before which such an issue can be adjudicated is different for no consumer dispute is involved. Ext.A2 copy itself belies the allegation that copy of the agreement was not made available to the complainant.
13. The complainant has a case that the fees realised by the first opposite party was unconscionable in nature. Again such issues are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Fees is charged as consideration for the services rendered. The sufficiency or insufficiency of consideration is not an issue that can be adjudicated by the consumer forum or consumer commission, for no deficiency in service is involved.
14. The main allegations relating to deficiency in service are that the first opposite party never cared to give valid or proper training. After six months they conducted some evaluation in the form examination. But actually the complainant was compelled to appear for a frivolous examination. In this regard, complainant as PW1 claimed that training was imparted not based on the curriculum. He admitted that the course started in March 2007 and ended in April 2008. The curriculum for the course is determined by a committee of experts including the opposite parties. Ext.A13 is the curriculum produced by the complainant. He deposed that he did not file a written complaint that training was imparted not in accordance with the curriculum. PW1 further claimed that as part of the course only full time course was conducted. No part time work was assigned to him. But later admitted that after six months there was internship in an outside institution. That internship was in Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. So it appears that the allegation that opposite parties failed to impart training as promised is not established in evidence. There is also no mechanism for a consumer court to assess whether promised degree of training was imparted or not. So also it is difficult to assess whether proper evaluation of the training imparted was done by the institution.
15. Another grievance of the complainant is that he was offered post graduate diploma in clinical research by York College of Industry & Technology but was actually given a degree conferred by Prince Edward College, Prince Edward Island. Further, when search was made on internet he came to know that Prince Edward College as well as York College where fake colleges not recognised by the Government of Canada or any University. Thus he was given a fake degree. As PW1, the complainant admitted that in Ext.B1, it is mentioned that if change happens to the institution which conducts the course the first opposite party would not be responsible. It appears that the York College lost recognition by the Government of Canada for some internal problems and they themselves transferred the responsibility to award diploma or degree in terms of the curriculum to the Prince Edward College and they awarded Ext.A7, course certificate. PW1 admitted that Ext.A11 shows that there is no approval for the Prince Edward College. But it is not stated that it is a fake college. It may be mentioned that deficiency in service arises in relation to the course offered. The course was offered by the first opposite party and training was imparted more or less in accordance with the curriculum. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. It is true that the institution which offered the degree was changed before the completion of the course. But it is difficult to conclude that, that is perse deficiency in service. True, there is breach of promise or even breach of agreement but that is not deficiency in service and the forum to award compensation for breach of promise or to enforce an agreement is different.
16. According to the opposite parties based on the training imparted by them and certificate issued the complainant got employment as a clinical research co-ordinator in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. As PW1, the complainant admitted that he submitted Ext.B2 bio data to the RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. He admitted that the work experience mentioned in Ext.B2 was obtained by him as part of the internship provided by the first opposite party. In Ext.B2 he has further shown post graduate diploma in clinical research conferred by the Prince Edward College, Canada. He also stated that he had handled clinical trials. He admitted that all these he obtained as part of the course while at the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. In the RCC, he worked as Clinical Research Co-ordinator. Though the complainant claimed that those who had not studied this course had also got employment, it, appears that the present course had helped the complainant in obtaining employment at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. So the present course was an useful one as far as the complainant was concerned. In short, the complainant has failed to establish that the opposite parties or any of them have committed deficiency in service alleged in the complaint. So the point is found against the complainant.
Point No.2
17. It follows from the above finding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER A.RADHA : MEMBER APPENDIX List of witness for the complainant Ext.PW1 - Sreejith List of exhibits for the complainant Ext.A1 - Copy of offer letter dated 21.03.2007 Ext.A2 - Copy of admission letter dated 21.03.2007 Ext.A3 - Copy of identity card Ext.A4 - Receipt dated 26.03.2007 Ext.A5 - Copy of prospectus issued to the complainant Ext.A6 - Copy of examination notification dtd : 01.03.2008 Ext.A7 - Copy of course certificate dtd: 14.05.2008 Ext.A8 - Copy of examination result published by IFCR dtd: 26.09.2008 Ext.A9 - Copy of circular issued by 1st op dtd: 13.01.2009 Ext.A10 - Copy to letter dtd: 11.07.2009 issued by the 11th OP. Ext.A11 - Copy of Information letter dtd: 19.08.2009 from National Co-Ordinator, Canada Ext.A12 - Copy of E-mail from Barbara Macnutt (Manager, GED Administrator / GED Chief Examiner Department of Innovation and Advanced Learning, P.O.Box 2009, Charlottetown, PE) Ext.A13 - College diary issued the IFCR Ext.A14 - Copy of agreement between 1st OP and one of the students List of witness for the Opposite party DW1 - Anil Joseph List of exhibits for opposite parties Ext.B1 - Copy of application form Ext.B2 - The application preferred by the opposite party and Information granted to the opposite party by the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram Ext.B3 - True copy of the sample sanctioning letters of loans by various banks Ext.B4 - True copy of the certificate of registration dated 07.03.2008 issued to the first opposite party Ext.B5 - True copy of the curriculum of CIT and true copy of the curriculum offered by IFCR Ext.B6 - True copy of one such MOU dated 28.11.2008 Ext.B7 - True copies of some appreciation letters Ext.B8 - True copy of letter dated 20.07.2010 by the Gulf Medical University Ext.B9 - True copy of the letter dated 10.08.2007 of YCIT Ext.B10 - True copy of the intimation dated 23.04.2007, issued by the Administrator, Private Training Schools, Department of Education, Prince Edward Island Ext.B11 - True copy of the notification dated 24.11.2007 issued by the first opposite party Ext.B12 - Copies of similar testimonials given to similar other IFCR CRA trainees at Manipal Acunova Ext.B13 - True copy of the list of some IFCR students and details of their placement K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER A.RADHA : MEMBER Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.N0.30/09 JUDGMENT DTD :20.01.2017 Be/