Jagriti Devi W/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o H.No.835, Sector 19, Panchkula.

                        ^{…Complainant}

^Vs.

Shivalik Institute of Para-Medical Technology, 781/1, Gobindpura, Chopra Hospital, Opposite Modern Complex, Community Center, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Director Devinder Chopra.

^{…Opposite Party}

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Shekhar Verma, Counsel for the Complainant

           Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Counsel for the Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                 ^{Shorn of all unnecessary details, suffice it to mention here that based on various representations, made by the Opposite Party in its Prospectus (Annexure C-1), and that the OP-Institute was recognized by the Govt. of India, the Complainant took admission in the Institute and got herself enrolled in the course of Nursing Assistant on 12.09.2002, and deposited a total fee of Rs.45,000/- (Receipts Annexure C-3). The Complainant alleged that in the 1st year, the marks sheet was issued by Para Medical Board of India on 22.7.2003, but for the 2nd year, no marks sheet was delivered and after dilly-dallying the matter, it was issued only in Nov. 2007 by Doon University, Raipur Chattisgarh (Mark sheets & other Certificates Annexure C-3 [colly]). In the year 2008, a Charitable Institute in Himachal Pradesh near Renuka Ji advertised certain posts of Nursing Assistants. The Complainant intended to apply but she was informed that prior registration for one year with Nursing Council and Para Medical Board of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh was required before applying for any post in Himachal Pradesh. However, the application form of the Complainant was not accepted by the concerned authorities citing the reason that her certificates have been issued by fake institutes/boards/ universities. The Opposite Party kept assuring the Complainant that her certificates were genuine and it would make arrangements for her employment. In the year 2011, once again, the Complainant had an opportunity to get employment in a Private Hospital at Chandigarh and she submitted her certificates to the said Hospital for getting employment. The Opposite Party also issued a certificate dated 14.2.2011 re-affirming the fact that the Institute is affiliated with Para Medical Board of India, which is duly recognized by the Govt. of India (Certificate Annexure C-4). The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party, but every time her inquiries were put off by the Opposite Party on one pretext or the other. Later on, it transpired after due inquiries, that no statutory body by the name of Para Medical Board of India is in existence or has been recognized by the Govt. of India, as claimed by the Opposite Party, and the Doon University is also not in existence. Also, no such course of Nursing Assistant, as offered by the Opposite Party, is considered valid. Eventually, a legal notice dated 01.03.2011 was served upon the Opposite Party, seeking refund of the fees paid, which failed to fructify. Hence emerged this Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.}

2.                 ^{Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.}

3.                 ^{Opposite Party in its reply by way of affidavit, while admitting the admission as well as fee paid by the Complainant, pleaded that no fraud was ever committed by it. Answering Opposite Party claims that it was affiliated to Para Medical Board, which was recognized by Govt. of India and all the facilities, mentioned in the Prospectus, were provided to the students (Copy of Affiliation and information of said affiliation Annexure R-1 & R-2). Answering Opposite Party further claims that marks sheet for 2nd year was issued on 5.7.2004 by the Controller of Examination and there had been no delay in issuing the same by the Opposite Party (Paper publication & gazette notification Annexure R-3 and R-4). It is asserted that Opposite Party issued genuine certificates and had never assured the Complainant for making arrangements for her employment. Complainant had paid the consideration for awarding the Diploma of Nursing which was awarded to her. No consideration was given for providing employment, so Opposite Party is not consumer qua grievance made by her. Relying on the settled law, answering Opposite Party pleaded that the Complainant had voluntarily taken the admission and had also signed an undertaking (Annexure R-5). Answering Opposite Party denied that it had ever evaded the queries of the Complainant. The Opposite Party was affiliated with Para Medical Board which was recognized by Govt. Doon International University was associated with Para Medical Board for awarding diplomas (Annexure R-6 to R-8). Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.}

4.                 ^{The complainant filed a short replication to the reply filed by the opposite party, pleading that copy of affiliation certificate placed on record by the Opposite Party as Annexure R-1 is apparently false, inasmuch as, in the said affiliation certificate, the words “DNA TWO YEAR” has been inserted by hand and such insertion has not been counter signed/stamped by an authorised person of the Para Medical Board of India. In support, the complainant has placed on record a copy of same affiliation certificate delivered by opposite party to the complainant alongwith certificate dated 14.02.2011 at Annexure C-4. In the said affiliation certificate (Annexure C-6), provided by none other than the Proprietor/Director of the opposite party under his signatures and stamp, the words “DNA TWO YEAR” are missing. Accordingly, the complainant claiming perjury, sought initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973,  against the opposite party. The Complainant has claimed that since the opposite party did not have any authorization to conduct Diploma in Nursing Assistant Course (DNA) therefore; it ought not to have made a false claim in the prospectus. Alongwith the replication, the complainant has placed on record list of genuine universities (Annexure C-7) as issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) and the name of “Doon International University” does not find mention in the said list. Lastly, the complainant has alleged that the opposite party has misused the words “Government of India” on fee receipts at Annexure C-2 (Colly) which is not only an offence but also a deliberate attempt to mislead public at large.}

5.                 ^{The complainant preferred an application u/s 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for summoning the concerned official from the office of Para Medical Board of India, along with record pertaining to affiliation granted by the Para Medical Board of India to the Opposite Party, for the years the Complainant was a student of Opposite Party Institute i.e. 2002 onwards.}

6.                 ^{As a sequel thereto, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain, Chairman/President of the Para Medical Board of India, appeared along with the summoned record. During his examination, the aforesaid witness has stated that the Para Medical Board of India is a private organization, registered under Societies Registration Act, 1956, for running vocational Para Medical Courses for private placement. Neither, it has affiliation from any statutory body nor there is any such statutory body from which affiliation could have been obtained. The witness was shown a copy of affiliation certificate relied upon by the opposite party having manual insertions (Annexure R-1) and a copy of affiliation certificate placed on record by the complainant alongwith her replication (Annexure C-6). The witness stated that both the certificates have been issued by Para Medical Board of India and the additions in affiliation certificate at Annexure R-1 were made by office bearer of the Board in the year 2002. The witness could not show any record whereby, the opposite party applied for affiliation with Para Medical Board of India which justified or called for the aforesaid additions in the affiliation certificate at Annexure R-1 and in this regard relevant portion of his statement is reproduced for ready reference:-}

^{“The documents containing application for additions in Annexure R-1 are not available with me right now. I do not know whether any correspondence in this regard is available in my office. However, exact copy of Annexure R-1 is available in our record. I do not have any record about application by Shivalik Institute of Para Medical Technology for grant of DNA course.”}

                Notwithstanding the aforesaid admissions, the witness made a vain attempt to justify the additions on the affiliation certificate at Annexure R-1 and in this regard stated that the affiliation certificate at Annexure C-6 was issued on 28.11.2001 by Para Medical Board of India, which is prior to the application dated 31.07.2002 (Exhibit C-X) submitted by the opposite party for grant of affiliation for Diploma in Nursing Assistant (DNA). The witness on being confronted with the contents of aforesaid communication dated 31.07.2002 (Exhibit C-X) he stated that vide said communication, the opposite party only made certain queries regarding syllabus and books and it was deemed to be an application for affiliation for the purpose of Diploma in Nursing Assistant. He has also stated that other than the aforesaid communication, he does not have any other document whereby, the opposite party sought affiliation for Diploma in Nursing Assistant. The witness confirmed that Para Medical Board of India never authorised the opposite party to write “Government of India” on the fee receipts. The witness stated on oath that he has been authorised by Para Medical Board of India to depose before this Forum but during the course of examination, he could not produce any such authorization and when confronted in this regard, stated that being an official of Para Medical Board of India, he does not require any authorization. However, the witness admitted that the constitution of the society namely, Para Medical Board of India, does not authorize all of its officials to act on its behalf. This Forum also put certain queries to the aforesaid witness, but during the course of examination, it was observed that the witness was receiving instructions/ directions from Dr. Devinder Chopra, Director/Proprietor of the opposite party and an observation to this effect was also recorded on the file.

7.                 ^{Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.}

8.                 ^{We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written submissions filed on behalf of the Opposite Party.} 

9.                 ^{The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was duped by the Opposite Party and in this regard, he referred to the contents of the prospectus.  He pointed out that in the prospectus, opposite party under the heading “INTRODUCTION OF INSTITUTE” has claimed affiliation with Para Medical Board of India registered with Government of India and the prospectus specifically provides that recognized/ approved means recognized/approved by the State Government as Health and Education being State subject under the Constitution of India. Further, under the heading “JOB OPPORTUNITIES” the prospectus clearly provides an assurance that the Diploma Holders will be able to get employment in Government/Semi Government, Primary Health Centres, Blood Banks and Private Hospitals all over India and the prospectus provides for Diploma in Nursing Assistant (DNA). To buttress his arguments, he also referred to the statement of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain, who stated on oath that Para Medical Board of India is a private organization registered under Societies Registration Act, 1956 for running vocational Para Medical Course only for private placement and it has no affiliation from any statutory body, which is contrary to the declarations made by the opposite party in the prospectus at Annexure C-1.} 

10.                ^{The Learned Counsel for the complainant also contended that without prejudice to the claim of the complainant that Para Medical Board itself is a bogus/fake institution; the declarations made in the prospectus by the opposite party are without any authorization of Para Medical Board of India. Assuming, the Para Medical Board of India to be a genuine institute having statutory approvals, the opposite party has failed to prove that it has any authorization/ affiliation for the course in question namely, Diploma in Nursing Assistant from the Para Medical Board of India. In this regard, we would like to refer to the statement of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain who has admitted that Para Medical Board of India has no record to show that opposite party ever applied to it for grant of affiliation for Diploma in Nursing Assistant Course. Furthermore, to the specific allegations of the Complainant with regard to perjury and the claim that “Doon International University” is not in the list of genuine universities issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) have not been denied/rebutted by the opposite party. It is evident that in certain certificates at Annexure C-3, Para Medical Board of India claims to have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1956 whereas in the affiliation certificate at Annexure R-1, it claims to have been registered under Victoria Act, 1854. We feel that the course in question being a technical course could not have been run by Para Medical Board of India without prior statutory approvals and merely for the reason that Para Medical Board of India claims to be a registered as a society under Societies Registration Act, 1956, it cannot be treated as a permission/registration by the Government.}  

11.                ^{The Opposite party took a preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Opposite Party referred to communication 15th June, 2004, at Annexure R-7, purported to have written by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India so as to claim that “Doon International University” is a genuine University. She also referred to communication dated 28.11.20011 at Annexure R-2 so as to claim that necessary information regarding affiliation of the opposite party with Para Medical Board of India was given to Department of Health, UT, Chandigarh and S.S.P, Chandigarh. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the opposite party never gave any assurance to the complaint for job and in case, the complainant has not been able to secure any job, the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in services. In support, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party cited judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shekhar Bhattacharya Vs. Gautam Rai Chaudhary 1993 CPJ page 378 and by the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Sabir Khan Vs. Delhi Institute of Computer Sciences CPJ 2009 page 79.}

12.                ^{Per contra, learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the complaint is not barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the limitation would start on the day when a person would come to know that he/she has been awarded fake degrees and fraud has been played upon him. Learned counsel for the Complainant further submitted that fraud vitiates all acts. In support, he placed relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Taxtiles India Private Ltd., 2009(11) SCC 18 and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shankar Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Mohkam Ariana and Anr., 2005(03) RCR (Civil) 768.}

13.                ^{We do not agree with the contention raised in this regard by Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. Instant complaint brings out the fraud played by the Opposite Party and it is only when such fraud comes to notice of the aggrieved, the period of limitation would commence. Further, on 14.02.2011, the Opposite Party gave in writing that it had affiliation for Diploma in Nursing, a fact which has been proved false and the present complaint was filed on 19.07.2011. In this regard, the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant namely Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Taxtiles India Private Ltd., 2009(11) and Shankar Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Mohkam Ariana and Anr., are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The conduct of the Opposite Party in placing on record a doctored affiliation certificate (Annexure R-1) during the pendency of the proceedings before Forum amounts to perpetuation of fraud by it. Therefore, the objection raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party cannot be sustained.}

14.                ^{In so far as communication dated 28.11.2001 at Annexure R-2 is concerned, firstly, the said communication nowhere refers to the course of Diploma in Nursing Assistant and it has been proved on record that the opposite party could not show that it has any affiliation for the aforesaid course. Secondly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said communication was ever actually served upon Chief Medical Officer, UT, Chandigarh or S.S.P Chandigarh. Thirdly, in law, the said communication cannot confer legitimacy upon the claims of the Opposite Party. Fourthly, the said communication has only been marked to the Opposite Party itself. Further, communication dated 15.06.2004 (Annexure R-7) relied upon by the Opposite Party is completely out of context for the reasons that the said communication has been written by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development “Department of Secondary and Higher Education” LANGUAGE DIVISION and cannot be read in the context of Para Medical Courses.}

15.                ^{A perusal of the prospectus at Annexure C-1 admittedly issued by the Opposite Party shows that it specifically provides and declares that it is duly registered with Para Medical Board of India registered with Government of India and explains that registration and approval means recommended by the State Government. The prospectus further provides that courses mentioned therein would confer eligibility upon diploma holders so as to secure government/semi government job and at certain places “Government of India” has been used especially, on the opening page of the prospectus in the following manner “(Affiliated to Para Medical Board of India) (Govt. of India)” and similar writing has been given in the fee receipts at Annexure C-2 Colly.}

16.                ^{In this regard, a reference would be necessary to the examination of Dr. D.K. Jain who has stated that they have not authorized Shivalik Institute of Para Medical Technology to write the words “Government of India” on the fee receipts. The aforesaid witness has admitted that Para Medical Board of India is only a private organization and is at the most only a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1956 and he has further admitted that vocational courses are meant only for securing private jobs. He has admitted that Para Medical Board of India does not have any statutory recognition to run Para Medical Courses. The witness has admitted that there is no record available with Para Medical Board of India to show that the Opposite Party ever applied for affiliation for Diploma in Nursing Assistant.}

17.                ^{In this backdrop, we have no hesitation in recording that even if Para Medical Board of India had authority to run Para Medical Courses, the information provided in the prospectus issued by the Opposite Party at Annexure C-1 was false and misleading as the same was even beyond the affiliation certificate granted to it by Para Medical Board of India. In the said prospectus, an impression has been given that courses offered therein are duly approved by Government of India and fee for the said courses is being collected with prior approval/ permission of Government of India and after completion of the course(s), one would be eligible to secure a government job. Though the prospectus explains “recognition” and “approval” as something granted by the State Government yet it mentions that the opposite party is affiliated with Para Medical Board of India registered with “Govt. of India”. Further, in absence of any record to suggest that the Opposite Party ever applied to Para Medical Board of India for grant of affiliation for the course namely, Diploma in Nursing Assistant, it stands established on record that the Opposite Party advertised seats for an unauthorized course namely, Diploma in Nursing Assistant and is thus, guilty of duping innocent persons including the complainant.}

18.                ^{Dr. D.K Jain who appeared for Para Medical Board of India also could not convince this Forum as to how a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1956, without any statutory permission from statutory/ regulatory bodies such Nursing Council of India constituted under Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 or Medical Council of India, can run a course for Diploma in Nursing Assistant. However, since Para Medical Board of India has not been impleaded as party to the present proceedings, we restrain ourselves from recording anything regarding its functioning and legitimacy in law so as to run a course for Diploma in Nursing Assistant.}

                Now we wish to deal with “Doon International University” which was claimed to be a University which issued mark-sheet and Diploma in Nursing Assistant to the Complainant. Firstly, no such University is in the list of recognized list of Universities as published by the University Grants Commission and in this regard reference is made to Annexure C-7 and this fact has not been denied by the Opposite Party. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has cited the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Writ Petition (Civil) no.19 of 2004 titled as  Prof. Yashpal & Anr  Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Or, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized of a similar controversy and more particularly the vires of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidaylaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002. Incidentally, the “Doon International University” was also constituted under the aforesaid enactment as is evident from the contents of Annexure R-7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidaylaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 and its provisions were declared to be ultra vires and were struck down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in the Gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the Universities (including respondent nos.3 to 94)  were quashed and with this, the reference made by Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party to a communication at Annexure R-7, purported to have been written by Government of India has lost its significance and in any case, the said communication only relates to “LANGUAGES DIVISION” and has no reference to “Diploma in Nursing Assistant.

                There is another aspect which needs to be discussed that initially, for the first academic year 2002-2003, Para Medical Board of India awarded mark-sheet/degree to the complainant but for the next academic session, it allegedly, formed an association with “Doon International University”. The necessary corollary would be that for the first academic year, the Para Medical Board of India had no authority in law to award mark-sheet/degree otherwise, why would it form an association with “Doon International University”.

19.                ^{In view of foregoings, there is no doubt in our mind that Opposite Party had indulged in unfair trade practice by offering admission to Complainant on false claims and affiliations and need to be penalized for the harassment caused to the Complainant as well as time lost in pursing their course with the Opposite Party. Since, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment, for a sufficient long time, and injustice was also done to her on account of false representation. In our considered opinion, grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac to the Complainant would be reasonable, fair and adequate.}

20.                ^{The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Versus Bhupesh Khurana and Others, reported as 2009 (4) SCC 484 had held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and accorded compensation to the Complainants. The relevant portions of the judgment are as under:-}  

^{34.     The Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rightly came to the conclusion as under: -}

^{“To our mind, the contention is unfounded. Reading the advertisement and prospectus as a whole, there is no manner of doubt that the impression given was that the College was affiliated with the Magadh University and was recognized by the Dental Council of India. If the College has not been affiliated and recognized, there was no occasion in admitting the students and wasting their valuable academic years. Moreover, the opposite parties have been admitting the students right from the year 1991-92 upto the year 1995 on this representation that the College was affiliated and recognized by the Dental Council of India. It cannot be denied that without affiliation to the Magadh University and recognition granted by the V, the so-called dental degree of BDS is just a useless piece of paper. The representation given in the advertisement that the College was under Magadh University and by the Dental Council of India could be taken by a common person to mean that the college had been given recognition by the Dental Council of India and was affiliated to the Magadh University.”}

        ^{Therefore, the Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and the claimants respondents are entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.”}

21.                ^{In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-}

[a]     To Refund the fee of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant;

[b]     To pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

[C]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

22.                ^{The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 21 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.} 

23.                ^{The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.}

Announced 

03rd December, 2013                                                  Sd/-

^{(RAJAN DEWAN)}

^PRESIDENT

^Sd/-

^{(MADHU MUTNEJA)}

^MEMBER

^Sd/-

 ^{(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)}

^MEMBER

 “Dutt”