Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/871/2022

PARUL GOYAL D/O B B GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/871/2022
Date of Institution	:	11/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	08/01/2024

Dr. Parul Goyal d/o B.B.Boyal, aged 26 years and r/o # G-4, Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Director General Medical Education and Training, 6^th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, Uttra Pradesh-226001.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Subharti Puram, Delhi Haridawar Byepass Road, Meerut-250005.
3. Vivekanand Subharti Medical College Subharti Puram, Delhi Haridawar Byepass Road, Meerut-250005 through its Principal.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Dr. B.B. Goyal, authorised representative of complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for OPs 2 & 3

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Dr.Parul Goyal, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 14.1.2022, complainant was offered seat in MS Ophthalmology at Subharti Medical College of Subharti University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as “subject University”) and was asked to deposit an amount of ₹2.00 lacs with OP-1 for admission in UP Medical Colleges (NEET PG 2021) in response to their advertisement in January 2022. Accordingly, complainant transferred the aforesaid amount with OP-1, which was paid as security amount, at the time of applying for admission in UP Medical Colleges and she was asked to appear for counselling cum admission UP NEET PG to be held on 31.1.2022 at Govt. Medical College Meerut to be conducted by Nodal Officer on behalf of OP-1.  During counselling held on 31.1.2022, complainant had again deposited another amount of ₹14,43,744/- by way of demand draft favouring OP-1 and in this manner has paid total amount of ₹16,43,744/-, which included an amount of ₹2.00 lacs deposited by the complainant as security. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP-3 through its Principal and enquired about the date from which the classes would be started, but, she was told that the classes would start after about one week and was told by OP-3 that she would be telephonically informed about the exact date.  The complainant kept waiting and contacting OP-3 about class date, but, was not confirmed by OP-3.  As per notification of the Medical Council of India, classes were to start w.e.f 1.2.2022 and on 5.3.2022 the complainant went to the College where she was told that the classes would start after in a day or two and on the same day she deposited a sum of ₹8,80,900/- vide three receipts (Ex.C-I to C-III). From 5.3.2022 onwards, complainant started working there and after a few days classes also started.  However, vide application dated 22.4.2022 (Ex.C-IV), complainant surrendered her seat with the permission of the Nodal Officer and as per rules within time frame. The complainant submitted the permission letter to OP-3 on the same day i.e. 22.4.2022 and requested for return of the documents/certificate and refund of entire admissible amount and at that time she was asked by OP-3 to first get all clearance certificates from the various offices, which was completed by the complainant on 27.4.2022 and despite of that OP-3 asked the complainant to serve in the hospital till 30.4.2022. Since the complainant had withdrawn from OPs 2 & 3 with due permission on 22.4.2022, as per rules, OPs were required to refund the amount deposited by her with them, but, they failed to do so despite various emails/letters (Ex.C-VII to C-X) by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.7.2022 (Ex.C-XI) to OP-1 and had also applied to OPs 2 & 3 for refund of the amount of ₹8,81,100/- paid to them.  Even after that, complainant requested the OPs through electronic, telephonic and registered letters for refund of the amount, but, with no result.  OP-1 had to refund total amount of ₹16,43,744/- i.e. full fee paid which was not refunded by it despite requests.  Even OPs 2 & 3 only partially refunded an amount of ₹4,39,200/- out of total amount of ₹9,91,723/- and are liable to refund the remaining amount after maximum deduction of ₹1,000/- as per UGC guidelines/ instructions. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.2.2023.
3. OPs 2 & 3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of material facts and cause of action.  It is admitted that the complainant took admission in OP-2 College on 4.3.2022 and deposited total sum of ₹8,78,400/- including security fee, hostel fee, miscellaneous fee, prospectus fee and affidavit fee.  It is stated that the complainant submitted her application for withdrawal on 22.4.2022. However, it is alleged that the amount refundable to the complainant, has already been refunded by the answering OPs as per UGC instructions and now nothing is payable by them to the complainant.  Moreover, the prospectus fee of ₹1,500/- and affidavit fee of ₹1,000/- are non refundable. The answering OPs have already refunded a sum of ₹4,39,200/- to the complainant as per notification dated 7.10.2021 of OP-1.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the authorised representative of the complainant, learned counsel for OPs 2 & 3 and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that though the complainant is seeking refund of ₹16,43,744/- on account of refund of fee against OP-1 and an amount of ₹5,52,523/- from OPs 2 & 3, but, vide his separate statement, father/authorised representative of the complainant has confined the claim to the tune of ₹4,39,200/- against OPs 2 & 3 by stating that the remaining amount has already been refunded by them, out of the total amount of ₹8,78,400/-, and has further stated that an amount of ₹7,21,872/- has also been refunded by OP-1 during the pendency of the consumer complaint, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1 has illegally withheld the balance amount of ₹9,21,872/- out of the total amount of ₹16,43,744/- and OPs 2 & 3 have also wrongly and illegally withheld an amount of ₹4,39,200/- and the complainant is entitled to the aforesaid amounts as is the case of the complainant, or if there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismisses, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. Admittedly, complainant had paid an amount of ₹16,43,744/- to OP-1 out of which ₹2.00 lacs was transferred on 14.1.2022 as security amount and ₹14,43,744/- was paid by way of demand draft and out of the aforesaid amount, an amount of ₹7,21,872/- has already been transferred in the account of the complainant.  Similarly, it is admitted case of the complainant and OPs 2 & 3 that an amount of ₹8,78,400/- was transferred to OPs 2 & 3 on account of tuition fee, hostel fee and miscellaneous charges, out of which an amount of ₹4,39,200/- has already been transferred to the account of the complainant.
   3. Ex.C-IV further indicates that the complainant had surrendered the seat of MS (Ophthalmology) with OPs 2 & 3 on 22.4.2022. The claim of the complainant is resisted by OPs 2 & 3 on the ground that as the complainant had joined classes for 50 days with OPs 2 & 3 and thereafter she has surrendered the seat, complainant is not entitled for the refund of the entire fee deposited and she is only entitled for partial refund, which OPs 2 & 3 have already refunded to her, and the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
   4. On the other hand, complainant has relied upon the direction/instruction of the University Grants Commission dated 2.8.2022 (Ex.C-XX), which clearly directs higher educational institutions that in case of cancellation of admissions/migrations of the students upto October 31, 2022 for the academic sessions 2022-23, the entire fee collected from student be refunded in full after deducting not more than ₹1,000/- as processing fee. The relevant portion of the aforesaid direction/instruction is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“Subject: Fee refund policy 2022-2023

Respected Madam/Sir,

        As you are aware that the University Grants Commission has issued the UGC guidelines on examination and academic calendar in view of the Covid-19 pandemic on 16 July, 2021, wherein UGC has stipulated the provision of refund of fees on account of all cancellations of admissions/ migrations of students during the academic session 2021-2022. Also, UGC on 12th July, 2022 has requested the higher educational institutions to fix the last date of their under graduate admission process after declaration of result of class XII by CBSE so as to provide sufficient time to such students for admission in under graduate courses. Also, it may be noted that several entrance examinations including CUET, JEE Main, JEE Advance etc. have been delayed, due to which admissions may continue up to October, 2022.

In view above, and in order to avoid financial hardships being faced by parents, it has been decided by UGC that full refund of fees should be made by the higher educational institutions on account of all cancellations of admissions/migrations of students up to October 31, 2022 for the academic session 2022-2023 as a special case. It is made clear that the entire fee, including all charges, should be refunded (i.e. there should be zero cancellation charges) on account of cancellations/ migrations up to October 31, 2022. Thereafter, on cancellation/ withdrawal of admissions up to December 31, 2022, the entire fee collected from a student should be refunded in full after deducting not more than Rs.1000/- as processing fee.

All the Higher Educational Institutions are requested to ensure the compliance of the UGC directions in respect of refund of fee in view of COVID-19 Pandemic related factors.”

 

5. In the case in hand, as it is an admitted case of the parties that the admission of complainant was for higher educational institution i.e. OPs 2 & 3 for the academic session 2022-23, the case of complainant is squarely covered under the aforesaid direction/ instruction issued by the UGC. 
6. As it has further come on record that the complainant had requested through application dated 22.4.2022 (Ex.C-IV) for cancellation/surrender of her admission with OPs 2 & 3, there was no option left with OPs except to refund the entire fee collected from the complainant, after deducting ₹1,000/- only as processing fee, especially when the hostel charges etc. have already been deducted by OPs 2 & 3 for the period for which the complainant remained there in the hostel and the complainant is now only praying for the refund of the security amount which is lying with OPs and also the balance tuition fee which is lying with OP-1.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, as it stands proved on record that the aforesaid balance amount has not been refunded by the OPs despite direction/instruction of the UGC, the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. OP-1 to refund the amount of ₹9,21,872 – 1,000 = ₹9,20,872/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 11.10.2022 onwards.
2. OPs 2 & 3 to refund the amount of ₹4,39,200 – 1,000 = ₹4,38,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 11.10.2022 onwards.
3. OPs to pay ₹40,000/- (i.e. ₹20,000/- by OP-1 and ₹20,000/- by OPs 2 & 3) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
4. OPs to pay ₹10,000/- (i.e. ₹5,000/- by OP-1 and ₹5,000/- by OPs 2 & 3) to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the respective OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) to (iii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining direction.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

08/01/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member