Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/158/2015

M. Sethu Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.D. Medical College and Hospital, Rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Vijayaraghavan,

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of filing : 10.02.2015

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE      Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                          PRESIDENT

                     Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL                             MEMBER

 

C.C. No.158/2015

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2022

M. Sethu Raman,

S/o. Mr. Muralidharan,

No.2/358, Anna Nagar,

Kaveripattinam (Po.),

Krishnagiri – 635 112.                                                                        .. Complainant. 

 

-Versus-

 

1. D.D. Medical College and Hospital,

Represented by its Chairman

Dr. T.D. Naidu,

No.61, DD Nagar Bus Stop,

Kunnavalam Post,

Thiruvallur Taluk & District – 631 210.

 

2. Dr. T.D. Naidu,

Chairman,

D.D. Medical College and Hospital,

No.61, DD Nagar Bus Stop,

Kunnavalam Post,

Thiruvallur Taluk & District – 631 210.                                                  .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                            : M/s. S. Vijayaraghavan

Opposite parties                                              : Exparte ( Mr. Ramesh)

 

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 22.07.2022  and on hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material records submitted by the complainant and this Commission made the following in the open Court:-

 

ORDER

Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL, MEMBER

 

The present complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-  towards the 1^st & 2^nd year tuition fees, Rs.7,00,000/- towards the capitation fees, Rs.4,00,000/- towards the expenses for books and equipments and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the complaint.

1.         Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

The complainant states that she had completed the Higher Secondary School Education and thereby wanted to get into the medical scheme of Education in order to become a qualified Doctor.  While so, the complainant saw the advertisement of the 1^st opposite party in the newspapers inviting applications for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2011-12.   The complainant and her  parents were attracted by the advertisements and approached the 2^nd opposite party who is the Chairman and Director for admission in the 1^st opposite party college.   The 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that all the claims made in the advertisement were true and further demanded a capitation fee of Rs.7,00,000/- which was duly paid in cash and for which, no receipt was given.  Apart from this, the complainant was also asked to pay the college fees of Rs.8,00,000/- which was also duly paid but the receipt was not given by the opposite party.  Moreover, it was made clear that it was compulsory for every student to stay in the hostel.  Since, it was compulsory the complainant had no other option but to pay Rs.60,000/- for the hostel.  The complainant received his first shock when he was informed that the approval by Medical council of India for the 1^st opposite party had been obtained only for the previous year 2010-11 and had not been secured yet for the relevant academic year 2011-12 for which the complainant had sought admission.

3.         The complainant states that when she contacted the 2^nd opposite party with regard to the non-approval of the institution for the year 2011-2012, she was informed that they would be applying for renewal and they would get the renewal shortly.  The complainant was shocked to know that not even a renewal application had been filed at the time when the advertisement was issued.   So, this is a clear unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant states that the 2^nd opposite party started threatening the complainant and other students by saying that they would not be permitted to pursue the study in the college unless and until they give signed blank papers.  Hence, the complainant has no other option except to give the signed blank papers to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant and other students had no other option.   The complainant further states that the 1^st opposite party did not have library facility, no books, no proper staff, no qualified doctors or proper laboratory nor even proper hostel facilities.   The complainant and other students were forced to pay the fees and tuition fees for Rs.8,00,000/- for the year 2012-2013 also. 

4.         The complainant states that  on 18.02.2013, the students sent a common letter to the MGR Medical University pointing out the position of the students and MCI approval status.  From MGR University, the complainant came to know that there is no chance of any renewal and it had been rejected by the MCI.  The complainant and a group of other students thereafter initialled writ proceeding in the High Court of Madras seeking regularization  which was not granted by the High Court because the opposite parties did not qualify for such regularization.  Finally, the Supreme Court also rejected the ground for regularization but reserved the right to seek compensation from the opposite parties in and by order dt. 02.06.2014.   The complainant states that there has been complete deficiency of service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties in not fulfilling their promise without approval by MCI.    The opposite parties made the complainant to pay the tuition fees for the 2^nd year also that is for the academic year 2012-13 by stating that only those who paid the fees for the 2^nd year would be allowed to write the 1^st year exam.  Therefore, the complainant states that the opposite parties have clearly rendered deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice.

5.         Though sufficient time was granted to the opposite parties 1 & 2, they have not filed their written version within the specified time limit.  Hence, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set exparte.     

6.         The complainant filed his proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 on their side. 

7.         We have heard the learned the Counsel for complainant and perused the documents filed in support of the claim relief and passed the following Order.   The similar cases filed by the other students where the opposite parties had filed versions were dismissed by placing reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission holding that the complaint against the Education Institution is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. 

8.         The Judgements referred in the said order are as follows:

1. In P.T.Koshy & Anr Vs Ellan Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC) Supreme Court has held that the “students are not consumers” and “Education” is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering “Service”
2. In Maharishi Dayanand University – Vs – SurjeetKaur, reported in 2020(11)SCC 159 dated 19.7.2020, it was held by the Supreme Court that “the Board is not a service provider” and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the “Board”
3. In Civil Appeal No.17802/2017 and 17803/2017 dated 30.10.2017 in Anupama College of Engineering – Vs Gulshan Kumar and others” the Hon’ble Supreme court placing reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in Maharishi Dayanant University Vs Surjeethkaur, has held that, “Education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of an admission, fees etc, there cannot be question of deficiency of service” such a matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

9.       In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the issue is no more res-integra and it is settled that the “Education is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering ‘Service’. Therefore, it is concluded that the educational institutions are not providing service and thus the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   Hence, following the earlier order, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-   

Ex.A1	20.06.2011	Copy of newspaper advertisement for admission 2011-2012
Ex.A2	2011-2012	Copy of prospectus for admission 2011-2012
Ex.A3	2011-2016	Copy of ID card
Ex.A4	28.11.2012	Copy of statement of marks from the website
Ex.A5	11.02.2013	Copy of Public notice by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University
Ex.A6	14.10.2013	Copy of Decision letter of MCI
Ex.A7	02.06.2014	Copy of Supreme Court Order

 

 

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT