Complainant/petitioner got his son admitted in PGDIB course for the year 2008-09 by paying Rs.3 lakh and a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards hostel fee.  Petitioner’s son attended the classes and stayed in the hostel.  He fell sick after some time and returned home.  Due to prolonged sickness, on doctor’s advice, he discontinued his studies. Petitioner wrote to the respondent on 30.8.2008 requesting for refund of the fee, etc.  Respondent declined the request for refund of the sum of Rs.3 lakh.  However, the sum of Rs.30,000/- deposited towards hostel fee was refunded.  Respondent declined to refund the fee on the ground that the last date for admission to the academic year 2008-09 ended on 31.7.2008 whereas the request was made for refund of the amount on 28.8.2008. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs.3 lakh to the petitioner towards fee with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

        Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed.  State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“When a student voluntarily leaves an educational institution, there is no deficiency in service on the part of that educational institution so as to entitle that student for refund of fees already paid for the period he did not receive instruction because of his leaving the institution on his own volition. The rationale for this is that the educational institution is willing and ready to impart education but it is the student who is responsible for not receiving the service by leaving the institution abruptly. No equitable considerations weigh, under those circumstances, when infact there is no deficiency in service. It is a fortiorari case when the prospectus of the educational institution places the position beyond doubt.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Letter dated 23.9.2008 Exhibit A5 issued by the Institute, which is a deemed University, clearly states that the admission for 2008-09 was closed on 31.7.2008 and the petitioner’s letter for discontinuation from the studies is dated 23.8.2008.  Petitioner’s son discontinued his studies voluntarily.  No deficiency can be attributed to the respondents.  Since the petitioner applied for refund of the amount after the closure of the admissions on 31.7.2008, the amount deposited by him towards fee could not be refunded to him.

        We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Revision petition is dismissed in limine.