CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.876/2008
DR. SUNIL AGGARWAL
R/O 427-A (REGENT),
SHIPRA SUNCITY, INDIRA PURAM,
GHAZIABAD, UP-201 014
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
ICRI HEALTH
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
A-201, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:04.07.2017
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of complainant is that he is a Consultant Radiologist and was last working in South America as Consultant Radiologist and Head of the Department(Radiology). Complainant has also done Visiting Fellowships from University of Pittsburgh, USA in PET-CT and in Virtual Colonoscopy and Abdominal MRI from University of Arizona, USA. Complainant has also done observer ship from Cornell University, New York, USA in Neuroradiology. On coming back to India complainant contacted OP regarding full time programme in MBA(Healthcare Management with specialization in hospital administration). On his visit complainant was told by marketing team of OP that this a full time programme recognized by Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Sardrarsahar, Rajasthan. They showed him the relevant documents, sample marksheet from IASE and other details as mentioned in the prospectus. Complainant filled up the application form and deposited registration amount of Rs.30,000/-. Complainant was told by OP to pay balance fee of Rs.1,54,950/- which was also paid. The course was supposed to start from 01.09.08 but on 28.08.08, complainant received a phone call from OP that the course would start from 08.09.08. On 08.09.08 a welcome letter was given to complainant in which the concerned university for the course was stated as PRIST university, Tamil Nadu instead of IASE, Rajasthan.
It is further stated that at the time of admission, complainant was told that there would not be more than 25 students in the class but later on OP enrolled 55 students in the class. There were not enough faculty members to teach. On 30.04.09 OP asked complainant to pay next year fee of Rs.1,24,600/-. The course was lacking standards as promised. There was only one permanent faculty member i.e. Dr. Dhingra. Complainant joined the course as it was told that the same was recognized IASE, Rajasthan but it was not so. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, complainant sought refund of the amount paid by him and also sought compensation.
OP in reply took the plea that complainant is not a consumer and also that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is evident from the letter dated 01.08.08 filed by complainant himself that the course is recognized by Prist University. Complainant took admission knowing fully well that the course is recognized by Prist University. Initially OP signed MOU with IASE university but later on IASE faced some issues in the High Court of Rajasthan for which they could not honour the agreement with OP. Thereafter OP entered into agreement with Prist University. It is further stated that complainant himself signed the terms and conditions wherein it is stated that “in case the said affiliation is withdrawn or does not remain valid through the entire course tenure due to any reason whatsoever, there would be no liability whatsoever, of the institute.”
It is further stated that as per the agreed terms and conditions mentioned in the application form as code and conduct which were duly signed by complainant on 31.07.08, it is categorically stated that “fee once paid is non-refundable under any circumstances”. It is denied that all subjects have been taught by only two permanent faculty members. It is denied that the students were taught through CDs.
It is further stated that the fee schedule was already provided alongwith letter dated 01.08.08 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the 2nd year fees will be payable before 30.04.09. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the records carefully.
The letter dated 01.08.08 clinches the entire issue where it is mentioned that this course is to be conducted by OP and Prist Univesity, Tamil Nadu. So before joining to the course, complainant was well aware that the course is to be conducted by Prist University. Complainant continued with the course for number of months so to say that complainant was not aware of it, is wrong.
Even otherwise complainant is not a consumer. Here it is useful to refer to case of Bharti Jindal Vs Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes & Anr 11(2014) CPJ 179 - in that case complainant got admission in IT branch of the OP and deposited Rs.47080/- on 12.7.10 and Rs.18000/- on 14.7.10. Due to family circumstances, the complainant could not join course, claimed refund of the amount. Only Rs.16000/- refunded. Relying upon Maharshi Dayanand Universities Vs Surjeet Kaur IV(2010) CPJ 19(SC) = V(2010) SCT 545 where it was held that matter of admission, fees etc cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer Dispute under CP Act. It was held by SC in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Pd. Sinha IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC) = VII(2009) SCT 109 as well as P.T. Kosny & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust 2012(3) C.P.C. 615(SC) that “Education Boards and Universities are not ‘Service Provider’.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
