STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO. 1057 OF 2013
AGAINST
CC NO. No. 283/2010, DISTRICT FORUM-1, HYDERABAD
Between:
Institute of Clinical Research ( India),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Having its Hyderabad Office at 1-10-3/2,
Cargo Office Building, Opp. Old Air Port,
Behind Bottles and Chimney,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Dr. Priti Chauhan,
W/o Dr. Atul Rathore,
Age : 31 years,
69, Vikas Puri, S. R. Nagar
Hyderabad – 500 038.
Ph : 040-32961837,
MOB: 939673970 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Raviteja
FA NO. 1058 OF 2013
AGAINST
CC NO. No. 284/2010, DISTRICT FORUM-1, HYDERABAD
Between:
Institute of Clinical Research ( India),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Having its Hyderabad Office at 1-10-3/2,
Cargo Office Building, Opp. Old Air Port,
Behind Bottles and Chimney,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Dr. Kirti Chauhan,
W/o Nitin Sahu,,
Age : 29 years,
69, Vikas Puri, S. R. Nagar
Hyderabad – 500 038.
Ph : 040-32961837,
MOB: 93961837 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Raviteja
FA NO. 1060 OF 2013
AGAINST
CC NO. No. 286/2010, DISTRICT FORUM-1, HYDERABAD
Between:
Institute of Clinical Research ( India),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Having its Hyderabad Office at 1-10-3/2,
Cargo Office Building, Opp. Old Air Port,
Behind Bottles and Chimney,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Anamika Besra,
Age : 23 years,
D/o Mr. Benjamin Besra,
C.R. P.F. Composite Hospital,
Amerigaog, 9th Mile,
Guwahati, Assam – 781023 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Raviteja
FA NO. 270 OF 2014
AGAINST
CC NO. No. 543 OF 2010, DISTRICT FORUM-1, HYDERABAD
Between:
Institute of Clinical Research ( India),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Having its Hyderabad Office at 1-10-3/2,
Cargo Office Building, Opp. Old Air Port,
Behind Bottles and Chimney,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
J. Sonia Krishna
D/o J. Murali Krishna
Aged : 22 years
Plot No. 22, Sreepriya Homes,
Sreenagar colony, Kurnool. Road
Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P... Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Raviteja
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the First Day of September
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
****
1) The above four appeals are filed by the same opposite party to set aside the impugned orders dated 29.08.2012 passed in respective CCs on the file of the District Forum-1, Hyderabad. Since the facts, advocates on both sides, appellant of the above four cases are one and the same, hence we are inclined to dispose of the same by common order.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainants, in all the above four cases, in brief, is that they are the students, who, pursued PG Diploma in Advance Clinical Research (PGDACR) Course from the opposite party Institute during the years 2008-2009. The Institute promised 100% placement assistance to students and also membership of ICR (JK) exciting jobs profiles and certification from Cranfield University, UK and ICH GCP Certification endorsed by University of London and also declared that certificates will be awarded by the UGC recognized Universities. But it did follow the A.P. Education Institutions Rules, 1987 to obtain permission. The A. P. Education Act 1982 says that only Societies/Trusts etc can only establish educational Institutions and AICTE also not approved the Cranfield University Certificate to ICRI. It did not provide eminent permanent faculty. Since the Certificates issued by them would not be useful for government jobs and for further studies and on their complaints, Begumpet police registered FIRs. Despite payment of huge amounts and promises made that they will provide pre-clinical site visits, internet facility and laboratory , they failed to impart proper training and education. They failed to respond to legal notices. The acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaints to direct the appellant/opposite party to refund the amounts paid by them, for compensation and costs.
4) The opposite party opposed the above complaints while explaining the reputation and status of their Institution in the international level contended that they are imparting On Year Full time course and their Institute is India’s Premier and the world’s largest Clinical Research Institute and that they have campuses in Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmadabad, Bangalore and Hyderabad. They have conducted examinations from 10.08.2009 to 14.08.2009 and the results were declared on 20.11.2009 and awarded PGDACAR by ICRI and thereafter also conducted training on industry expectations. The complainants were informed for placement interviews for two times but they did not come forward. Fee once paid is non-refundable under any circumstances. They have provided eminent faculty experts. Their earlier students were successfully employed and their certificate is highly reputed and accepted by various reputed companies. All qualifications listed in the advertisement of PGDACR on 18.08.2008 are awarded by ICR India and are not recognized by AICTE/UGC or any other State Act. It was established under companies Act, 1956 and Societies Registration Act 1860 under the Indian laws. The complainants had already been given ICR UK Membership certificate. They never stated that the PGDACR course will be awarded certificate from UGC recognized University along with additional certificate from Cranfield University UK. They also denied that the PGDACR is being awarded by the PRIST University under collaboration mode. The PGDACR course has no relevance with any University. They also stated it was required to provide placement assistance which it provided to 100% students. They engaged the services of senior Pharmacological experts/Doctors. This is the only institute giving hands on experience in oracle clinical and medical writing software. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the above complaints.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainants filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-19 and the opposite party filed Evidence Affidavit and marked Ex. B1 to B50 in all the above four complaints.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to refund the fee of Rs.2,90,000/- paid by each complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days in each of the above cases.
7) Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant/opposite party preferred these appeals before this Commission.
8) Heard the counsel for the Appellant/opposite party. No representation for respondents/complainants for the last one year.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10) Point No.1 :
We have heard and perused the contentions and evidence put forth by both sides. Having attracted by the advertisements propagated by the appellant/opposite party Institute by way of pamphlets, brochures, News papers etc., for better faculty, valuable certificates, recognition of reputed international University and 100% placement within India and outside India etc., the respondents/complainants joined the appellant/ opposite party Institute for studying PGDACR course by paying requisite fee dreaming that they will get jobs immediately after completion of their course. They attended the classes and studied there for about 10 months, written examinations and certificates were issued to them. Then and there only the problem started. After perusing the Certificates, the respondents/complainants observed that the Certificates issued by them would not be useful for government jobs and for further studies and hence on their complaints, Begumpet police registered FIRs.
11) The respondents/complainants contended that despite payment of huge amounts made by them, the appellant/opposite party did not provide pre-clinical site visits, internet facility and laboratory as promised and failed to impart proper training and education, valuable certificates and also placements. Despite their promise they did not provide eminent permanent faculty.
12) On the other hand, the appellant/opposite party rebutted the same stating that they never said that their Institute was recognized as alleged by the respondents/opposite parties and contended the respondents/complainants were informed for placement interviews for two times but they did not come forward. Fee once paid is non-refundable under any circumstances. They have provided eminent faculty experts. Their earlier students were successfully employed and their certificate is highly reputed and accepted by various reputed companies. They further contended that the institute will not be responsible in any way whatsoever for the performance of the student in any examination, interview/job/extra curricular activities etc and cannot take responsibility of giving a job or placement to any student. Recruitment of the candidate shall solely depend upon the performance of the candidates as such the Institute shall not be liable or responsible in this behalf in any manner whatsoever. Further they argued that they have conducted classes from 15.10.2008 to 30.07.2009. During a span of 10 long months did not raise even a single issue regarding either the quality of education, syllabus, course content, delivery, qualification and experience of faculty, expertise of the visiting faculty their qualification, experience etc. teaching methodology.
13) In support of their contention, the respondents/complainants filed Ex.A-1 news paper advertisement issued by the appellant/opposite party , which, shows that their students have been appointed by MNCs and got 100% placements, excellent job opportunities IN USA, Europe, Singapore and India. Further, therein, it is printed All qualifications awarded by ICRI, India are not recognized by AICTE/UG or any other State Act. Similarly Ex. A3 and A6 pamphlets also show luring the students. Ex. B-13 to B17 are seems to be not authenticated. We have perused all the documents marked which show that the appellant/opposite party attracted the students and collected huge amounts from them exaggerating lucrative jobs and failed to keep their promise made as per their advertisement. They did not prove that how many students were recruited through their Institute.
The acts of the appellant/opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We have further observed that the appellant/opposite party admitted that the respondents/complainants paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- each to them. Hence the District Forum directed the appellant/opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- , Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs..5,000/- to each of them.
14) This Commission on 29.08.2017 observed that the counsel for the Appellant present. No representation for Respondents. Counsel for Appellant submitted that for the last one year there has been no representation for respondents, he also informed that these 4 appeals are part of 24 batch FAs. That all other Appeals have already been disposed of by way of compromise/ Settlement. However, since the Advocate on record is not representing these four Appeals, they remained unsettled and posted for hearing. In the circumstances, heard counsel for Appellant. It is deemed that respondents/complainants have no arguments either oral/documentary to advance or file. Hence, their arguments are dispensed with. Appeals are reserved for orders to be passed on similar lines of the 20 Appeals already disposed of.
15) We have observed that those 20 batch matters were settled out of Court in unequivocal terms by way of compromise to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the respondents/ complainants by the appellant/opposite party. In view of the docket orders and also in view of the settlement of the dispute in other 20 batch appeals, we are inclined to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- ( including statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal ) to each of the respondents/complainants in each of the above four cases on similar lines of the other 20 Appeals already disposed of. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
16. Point No. 2 :
In the result, all the above four Appeals, i.e., FA 1057/2013, FA 1058/2013, FA 1059/2013 and FA 270/2014 are dismissed and consequently the respective complaints in CC 283/2010, CC 284/2010, CC 286/2010 and CC 292/2010 are allowed in part modifying the impugned orders and directing the appellant/opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- ( including statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal ) to each of the respondents/complainants in each of the above cases. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 01.09.2017.
