DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 228/2016
No. DF/ Central/ February 2018
Dr. Yogesh
S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh,
R/o DDA Flat No. 111-B, Pitam Pura Village,
Delhi - 110034
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Ahead Dental Academy
At : 57/11, Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Sh. Atul Soin
Director of the Firm, Ahead Dental Academy,
At: 57/11, Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ms. Rekha Rani President
Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member 13th February, 2018
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against OPs on 08/07/2016 alleging therein that OPs are running Institute for special courses (Certificate course in clinically dentistry) of: endodontics, prosthodontics and
esthetic dentistry special courses fixed orthodontics and implantology, crown
Down technique, Pediatric Trauma Case, Three dimensional obturation, Adhesive Dentistry, Crown and Bridge Preparation, Protapers and Rotary Endodontic Radiography, Use of RVG and Apex locators Retreatment in Endodontics, Single Sitting RCT, Post and Core, Minor Surgical Procedures, Pulpotomy and Apexification and Megnetic Dentures and was to complete the above said 14 patient treatment in three months for which they demanded Rs. 1,65,000/- from the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 1,45,000/- to OPs but stopped cheque of Rs. 15,000/- along with a some of Rs. 5,000/- in cash as the OPs did not perform their contract of 14 type of diseased patients as the patients were to be provided by the OPs. The OPs completed 5 type of diseased patient out of 14. The complainant made several verbal as well as telephonically requests to the OPs even after the completion of the contract of 03 months time from 05/02/2016 to 03/05/2016 but the OPs did not pay any attention to the complaint of complainant. Legal notice dated 19/05/2016 was sent to the OPs. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complaint prayed that OPs be directed to return /refund the money as claimed by the complainant along with interest of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
Notice was sent to OPs and OPs filed their reply and denied the allegations made by the complainant stating that the complainant has completed his clinical dental course and has done his theoretical practical training. In the reply OPs have further stated that the complainant had done one to one training for clinical procedure by expert faculty members in different streams by using equipments and was also provided with various types of patients for practice and learning clinical procedures under the guidance of expert faculty Members. Special sessions on infection control was also conducted and also placed on record daily attendance of the complainant in proof of the same. OPs prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost.
In rejoinder the complainant has reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and denied the allegations made by the OPs in their written statement. Affidavit of evidence has been filed by parties in support of their averments made in complaint and written statement. Complainant has filed the copy of the pamphlet as Ex CW 1/1, bank statement and receipt of the payments made to OPs as Ex CW 1/2 and CW 1/3 copy of legal notice as Ex CW 1/4 and its postal receipt as Ex CW 1/5. OP has filed its evidence and placed on record the copy of the name of patients which were provided to the doctors for training purpose including the name of the complainant as Ex CW 2/A and daily attendance of the complainant as Annexure A and B and exhibited as CW 2/4 (colly).
We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OPs, gone through the record placed on the file as well as written arguments filed by both the parties.
In this case the prayer of the complainant is to refund the fee of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with interest of Rs. 25,000/- and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- alleging that the OPs did not perform their contact with the complainant as promised.
Complaints relating to refund of fees with interest and compensation against schools, colleges, educational institutions alleging deficiency in services and resorting to unfair trade practice are very common. In some cases, the educational institutions refunds the fees. Shall the institute refund the fees? These questions are decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the questions as to whether education is a ‘service’ and whether student is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has held in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532 of 2012, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court took the following view:-
Complaints relating to Education, refund of fee with interest and compensation for loss of academic year against Schools, Colleges, Universities and Coaching Institutions alleging deficiency in service or resort to unfair trade practices are very common. Shall the Institute refund the fee? The issues have been raised and considered.
These questions are decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the questions as to whether education is a ‘service’ and whether student is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
has held in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532 of 2012, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court took the following view:-
"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi (Dayanand University v/s Surjeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0485/2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.
In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.01.2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services & Ors, 2013 (10) SCC 136, held that the student, under such circumstances, is not a ‘consumer’.
In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant being a ‘student’ is not a ‘consumer’ and OP has not provided any services within the meaning of section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per law.
Announced on this ___ th Day of February 2018.
