Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Sukhmandeep Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  and having applied/ paid/ appeared for IELTS evaluation English test as the complainant wished to study abroad. The Opposite Party is a co-owner of IELTS means International English Language Testing System  and it is a test of English language proficiency. The test is designed to assess the language ability of non-native speakers of English who intend to study or work where English is the language of communication. Opposite Party offers more than 400 test locations in 50 countries having a branch office at Amritsar at the address mentioned above. The complainant who had just finished his school wished to go to Canada for his higher education and in process of doing so applied for the IELTS examination as clearing this examination is a pre requisite for applying in good international universities. After complying with all the formalities and paying all the fees the complainant was intimated two separate test dates of 14.6.2016 and 20.7.2016 vide email. It is necessary to mention over here that the complainant worked very hard and appeared in the examination on the date intimated and performed very well. The agonishing journey of the complainant started on 27.7.2016 when he saw an email sent by team IDT IELTS stating that the complainant’s test was analyzed as it is a routine procedure and as a result of this routine procedure the complainant’s test has come under scrutiny and is being investigated. The complainant on having received such a email rushed straight to the IDP branch off the very next day where he was kept waiting for hours and when he was attended, he was told that his result was on hold till the investigation is over. The complainant and his family came under tremendous depression and pressure as they were in continuous touch with various universities in Canada and the session was about to start in September and without IELTS result no university will give complainant the admission.  The agonies of the complainant was further aggravated when he received another email on 06.09.2016 from IELTS investigation team communicating the outcome of their investigation and decided not to release the result of the complainant and further stating that the report had also been made to other IELTS test partners making it even more difficult for the complainant to take admission in any university as the IELTS test is routed through complainant’s passport number and all the recognized organization will be able to view the outcome online. The complainant till date is unaware about the reason of why his result was cancelled and the Opposite Party never asked any explanation from the complainant making the investigation unlawful as the said investigating team working on the behalf of the Opposite Party did not follow the principle of ‘Audi Alter am Partum’ which means that no one should be condemned unheard. The complainant is a student aiming to study abroad and make his carrier and such act of utter unlawfulness by the Opposite Party has spoiled the carrier of the complainant although he still stands a chance to seek mid term admission if the complainant is provided with his results immediately. Based on the facts as narrated above, it is submitted that Opposite Party is guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant herein and have miserably failed in discharging their responsibility at the time of transaction.   Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed to release the result of the complainant and remove the adverse remarks posted online on their database which can be viewed online by various other IELTS partners with immediate effect and

 b)     Pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.

c)       Pass such other order or orders or directions as this Forum may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party. Admittedly, the complainant has taken the IELTS test as conducted by Opposite Party to get admission in education courses in Canada or any other overseas country. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010(11) SCC 159 and 2010(2) CPC 696 SC has categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutes are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admissions, fees etc. there can not be deficiency of service. Such maters are not to be entertained under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Said dicta has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshi & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors reported as 2012(3) CPC 615 and also in SLP (Civil) No.13472 of 2012 dated 7.5.2012 in case of Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College Vs. Archita Devi and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground of being no maintainable as per the law. On merits, the contents of the  complaint are admitted only to the extent of the appearance of the complainant in the IELTS examination. However, the reasons and intent of the complainant for appearing in the IELTS examination is denied for want of knowledge.  It is further submitted that as per the Article 15 of the declaration in the application form for the IELTS as submitted by the complainant, if permits the Opposite Party, if required to cancel or permanently withheld the rest results of a candidate if suspected of mal practice. It is pertinent to mention over here that the result of the IELTS test is declared after proper verification and scrutiny by the experts to protect the integrity and the sanctity of the test results before they are issued to the candidates. Further every endeavour is made to declare the results of the IELTS candidates in time, but there is no fixed schedule or liability of the Opposite Party to declare the result o the complainant on a given and fixed date. The complainant took the test at a time when a crib sheet was in circulation at the test venue. Further, there was no lapse on the part of the Opposite Party in not declaring the IELTS test result of the complainant. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C5  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Manager accounts Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 and OP3    and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  and having applied/ paid/ appeared for IELTS evaluation English test as the complainant wished to study abroad. The Opposite Party is a co-owner of IELTS means International English Language Testing System  and it is a test of English language proficiency. The test is designed to assess the language ability of non-native speakers of English who intend to study or work where English is the language of communication. Opposite Party offers more than 400 test locations in 50 countries having a branch office at Amritsar at the address mentioned above. The complainant who had just finished his school wished to go to Canada for his higher education and in process of doing so applied for the IELTS examination as clearing this examination is a pre requisite for applying in good international universities. After complying with all the formalities and paying all the fees the complainant was intimated two separate test dates of 14.6.2016 and 20.7.2016 vide email. It is necessary to mention over here that the complainant worked very hard and appeared in the examination on the date intimated and performed very well. The agonishing journey of the complainant started on 27.7.2016 when he saw an email sent by team IDT IELTS stating that the complainant’s test was analyzed as it is a routine procedure and as a result of this routine procedure the complainant’s test has come under scrutiny and is being investigated. The complainant on having received such a email rushed straight to the IDP branch off the very next day where he was kept waiting for hours and when he was attended, he was told that his result was on hold till the investigation is over. The complainant and his family came under tremendous depression and pressure as they were in continuous touch with various universities in Canada and the session was about to start in September and without IELTS result no university will give complainant the admission.  The agonies of the complainant was further aggravated when he received another email on 6.9.2016 from IELTS investigation team communicating the outcome of their investigation and decided not to release the result of the complainant and further stating that the report had also been made to other IELTS test partners making it even more difficult for the complainant to take admission in any university as the IELTS test is routed through complainant’s passport number and all the recognized organization will be able to view the outcome online. The complainant till date is unaware about the reason of why his result was cancelled and the Opposite Party never asked any explanation from the complainant making the investigation unlawful as the said investigating team working on the behalf of the Opposite Party did not follow the principle of ‘Audi Alter am Partum’ which means that no one should be condemned unheard. The complainant is a student aiming to study abroad and make his carrier and such act of utter unlawfulness by the Opposite Party has spoiled the carrier of the complainant although he still stands a chance to seek mid term admission if the complainant is provided with his results immediately. Based on the facts as narrated above, it is submitted that Opposite Party is guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant herein and have miserably failed in discharging their responsibility at the time of transaction.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and contended that it is admitted that complainant has taken the IELTS test as conducted by Opposite Party to get admission in education courses in Canada or any other overseas country. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010(11) SCC 159 and 2010(2) CPC 696 SC has categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutes are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admissions, fees etc. there can not be deficiency of service. Such maters are not to be entertained under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Said dicta has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshi & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors reported as 2012(3) CPC 615 and also in SLP (Civil) No.13472 of 2012 dated 7.5.2012 in case of Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College Vs. Archita Devi and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground of being no maintainable as per the law. On merits, the contents of the  complaint are admitted only to the extent of the appearance of the complainant in the IELTS examination. However, the reasons and intent of the complainant for appearing in the IELTS examination is denied for want of knowledge.  It is further submitted that as per the Article 15 of the declaration in the application form for the IELTS as submitted by the complainant, if permits the Opposite Party, if required to cancel or permanently withheld the rest results of a candidate if suspected of mal practice. It is pertinent to mention over here that the result of the IELTS test is declared after proper verification and scrutiny by the experts to protect the integrity and the sanctity of the test results before they are issued to the candidates. Further every endeavour is made to declare the results of the IELTS candidates in time, but there is no fixed schedule or liability of the Opposite Party to declare the result o the complainant on a given and fixed date. The complainant took the test at a time when a crib sheet was in circulation at the test venue. Further, there was no lapse on the part of the Opposite Party in not declaring the IELTS test result of the complainant.

8.       It is not the denied that that complainant has taken the IELTS test as conducted by Opposite Party to get admission in education courses in Canada or any other overseas country. But however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in 2010(11) SCC 159 and 2010(2) CPC 696 SC has categorically held that educational institutions cannot be dealt with by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the reason that institutions imparting education is not providing service and they are not service provider. The Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to deal with educational institutions.   Said dicta has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshi & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors reported as 2012(3) CPC 615 and also in SLP (Civil) No.13472 of 2012 dated 7.5.2012 in case of Chairman Desh Bhagat Dental College Vs. Archita Devi and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground of being no maintainable as per the law.

9.       In view of the judgements supra, it is held that the Opposite Party is not a service provider and as such, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendancy of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum