Date of filing :06.11.2017

Judgment : Dt.20.8.2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

            This complaint is filed by Sagnik Roy under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against opposite party (referred as OP hereinafter) namely Dipankar Kar, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, on his part.

            Complainant’s case in short is that he paid a total sum of Rs.4,20,000/- to OP who is proprietor of  “Career & I” for admission in MD Course (equivalent to MBBS Course In India) in Cagayan State University, Philippines. OP, being authorized agent of the said University, accepted Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.9.2016 but subsequently offered him to take admission in University of Northern Philippines a college with same facilities, as Cagayan State University had suspended admission for the year 2016-2017. Finding no other way, on 28.10.2016, Complainant paid further amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as required by them. Complainant was accompanied by his parents to Philippines for admission, on 16.12.2016 but on physical verification and having discussion with the college authorities, it was observed that the college had no hostel facilities, laboratory was under construction and there was no hospital. So, he decided not to take admission in that college and informed accordingly to OP. But the counter part of OP in Philipines namely Santhanan insisted Complainant and his parents to take admission and finally they refused to return the original documents and they forced to declare ‘no dues’ to them and thereafter returned the documents. On return to India, Complainant asked OP to refund Rs.4,20,000/- but he refused to pay back the money and reminded of declaration of ‘no dues’ which was forcefully obtained. So, Complainant moved to Consumer Grievance Cell i.e. Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices for redressal but as money was not refunded, present complaint is filed praying for directing OP to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of notice sent through Ld. Advocate’s dt.20.5.2017 and 12.06.2017, money receipts, copy of information brochure and copy of postal track report.

            Opposite party has contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations made against him contending inter-alia that as the Medical College admission was closed at “Cagayan State University” due to their administrative problems, 16 candidates including Complainant, out of 23 candidates, applied for admission to “University of Northern Philippines” and rest of seven candidates took back their money from the OP after deducting their necessary expenses. But on the schedule date of ‘FSAT’ test at University of Northern Philippines, Complainant did not sit for test where as other students took admission in the said University. Complainant never disclosed to OP and other associates in Philippines, his difficulty in taking admission in the said University of Northern Philippines. He had taken back all the testimonials giving ‘no dues’ and came back to India with his parents. Complainant and his father knew that expenses towards VISA and payment made for sitting in admission test was “non-refundable”. So, there has not been any unfair trade practice. OP is only guide and not a service provider. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the case.

            OP has also annexed with the written version, certificates of authorization in favour of OP by different foreign Universities including by University of Northern Philippines, print copy of advisory by medical Council of India, photocopy of advertisement made in news paper, copy of application form by the Complainant, copy of complaint by the Complainant made before Consumer Grievance Cell and OP’s reply, copy of letter dt.7.10.2016 sent to Complainant by University of Northern Philippines, copy of reply dt.07.8.2017 sent by OP in response to the demand notice of the Complainant and copy of letter by the Complainant dated 18.12.2016 given to the University about no dues and no misunderstanding.

            During the course of evidence, both parties have filed their respective affidavit-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately, arguments have been advanced. OP has also filed brief notes of argument.

            So, the following points require to be determined:-

            i) Whether there has been any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

            ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed?

            Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion.

            Claim of the Complainant that he had applied for admission initially at Cagayan State University in Philippines and as admission was closed there, he had to apply in the University of Northern Philippines and paid a total sum of Rs.4,20,000/- is not in dispute. Complainant has claimed that he did not sit in admission test namely ‘FSAT’ because there was no hostel facilities in the said University of Northern Philippines, there was no hospital and the laboratory was under construction. But, in order to substantiate his said claim, Complainant has not filed any document before this Forum. Complainant has to establish by cogent evidence that he had to return to India without appearing in the said ‘FSAT’ on the scheduled date because those facilities were not available and there was deficiency in service. Complainant has to prove those deficiencies as alleged, in the given situation of this case all the more as admittedly he has written letter a to the said University of Northern Philippines about ‘no dues’. Copy of the said letter dt.18.12.2016 has been filed by the OP, which reads as follows :-

            “I, Sagnik Roy, a valid Indian Passport holder bearing No.L2085557 have decided not to appear FSAT (Foreign Student Aptitude Test) exam due to some personal reason. Therefore, we don’t have any misunderstanding between college and the agent, Mr. Dipankar Roy and Dr. Santhanan. So, kindly return the Red ribbon documents”.

            It is evident from the above mentioned document that the Complainant for some personal reason did not appear for the test and there was no complaint against the OP and the college. However, Complainant has now claimed that he was forced to write the said letter. But it is strange that neither Complainant nor his father lodged any complaint anywhere including the police for the said coercion. For the first time, Complainant stated about the alleged coercion in the notice dt.12.06.2017 sent by him to OP through his Ld. Advocate, which is after about six months of his return. But, even in the said notice, he has not stated as to who forced him and the date when he was forced to do so. Complainant must have stated the same, especially when it is the specific case of the OP that other five students appeared in FSAT and are continuing their studies. In the Complaint also, Complainant has not stated anywhere who had put him under coercion and when it was done.

            As per the Advisory of the Medical Council of India relating to list of foreign medical institutions/Universities of MBBS or equivalent course, it is very categorically stated that the public at large is advised that before taking admission in MBBS or its equivalent course in a University outside India, confirmation of the Fee Structure and duration of course should be directly obtained from the University/Institution concerned. It is further stated in the advisory that the Medical Council of India has neither appointed nor authorized any agent/ broker Liasoning Officer for admission of students into any medical course in India and abroad. However, a list of foreign Universities/Institutions as approved/recognized by the authorities concerned in respective countries is given there, which also includes University of Northern Philippines. So, it was the bounden duty of the Complainant and his parents to enquire in details about the concerned University before proceeding. In this case, it could be expected more, as the Complainant’s sister namely Sreetama Roy had also applied for MBBS course at LUZHOU MEDICAL COLLEGE in China and had appeared for the relevant test. The documents filed by the OP reveals that for his daughter also, Complainant’s father had sent e- mail to OP to arrange for VISA and for their stay; which also suggests that the OP was known to the Complainant’s father since before. Sister of the Complainant had applied sometimes in 2013 and the said e-mail by the Complainant’s father is dt.23.09.2013.

            So, if the letter of no dues and no misunderstanding dt.18.12.2016 is taken into consideration coupled with the fact that Complainant has not filed any document to show that there was no hostel facilities, no laboratory and hospital as claimed by him, then the case of the Complainant about unfair trade practice by OP fails. Regarding his claim of obtaining letter by coercion also fails in the absence of any evidence in this regard. It may however be mentioned here that to prove coercion, elaborate evidence is required which cannot be done in a summary proceeding as in this case. So, in such a view of the matter, as Complainant has not been able to establish his claim, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence

                            Ordered

              CC/629/2017 is dismissed on contest.