Haryana

Ambala

CC/288/2012

RAMAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PARA MEDICAL - Opp.Party(s)

DHARAM SINGH

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No.:288 of 2012

Date of Institution:  :26.09.2012.

Date of Decision     : 20.03.2015

 

Raman Kumar son of Sh. Ved Parkash, resident of village Khevi Darshan Singh, Post Office Talakaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                   ……Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         Jai Para Medical College, Saha-Shahbad  Road, Saha, District Ambala through its  President, Shri Jai Kumar Rana.

 

2.         Jai Jawala Ji Educational Welfare Society (Bihta) District Ambala through its Secretary/President.

 

3.         Para Medical Council (Punjab) Mohali, SCO No.37, opposite ESI Hospital, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Chairman-Dr. Lakhwinder Singh.

 

                                                                                                           ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.

             SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Dharam Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Vishal Mittal, Adv. counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER.

 

1.                     Present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’)  has been filed by the complainant alleging therein  that in the month of April 2010, he came to know through advertisement published in Newspaper for diploma/course of Multipurpose Health Worker (M.P.H.W) and thus he contacted  the OP No.1 personally as well as got details regarding the course from the website of OP No.3 whereby it has been stated that after completing the said course for 18 months i.e.  12 months in college and 6 months as practice, he will get Govt. Job as well as in private sector.  It has been further submitted that as per the advertisement of the Ops, he applied for the said course and deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the Ops No.1 & 2 at the time of admission vide receipt No.23 dated 02.06.2010 and remaining fee of Rs.30,000/- was to be deposited in three installments. The complainant further submitted that as per directions of the Ops, Rs.4000/- was deposited on 15.09.2010 vide receipt No.226 & Rs.16000/- on 07.02.2011 vide receipt No.495 and Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.349 dated 06.04.2011.  It has been further averred that the complainant attended the course regularly for 18 months and  examination for the said course was held in March 2011 and he was declared pass with Ist Division and a certificate for Multipurpose Health Workers (Male)  was issued to him on 18.05.2011 bearing serial No.2211132 under roll No.1723.  As per complainant,   he was sent to various hospitals for compulsory training period of six months and in the month of  May –June 2012, an advertisement  from the office of Civil Surgeon, Yamuna Nagar was published in newspaper regarding 65 posts of MPHW and he  applied for  the same but he was shocked  when  his application was rejected  on the ground that the course run by the Ops was not in accordance with the rules & regulations of Haryana Government.  Hence, the complainant approached the Ops and brought all these facts to their notice wherefrom the Ops stated that the candidates who have passed the said course are working at Govt. Hospitals at Yamunanagar.  As such, the complainant filed an application under Right to Information Act and received information as under:-

(i)        “Course/diploma run by Para Medical Council, Mohali is not according to the Service Rules”.

(ii)       That the Haryana Staff Selection Commission is only Selecting Authority. Service/job is provided by the department only and only those candidates  are appointed  who fulfils all the term & conditions  as per service rules.  

(iii)     That the diploma/course of MPHW run by the para Medical Council, Mohali is not affiliated to Haryana Govt. and only those candidates for 560 posts are eligible  who had obtained the diploma of MPHW from the Centers/colleges who have been affiliated to Govt. of Haryana.

 

(iv)      That no candidate has been selected who passed the diploma of Paramedical Council, Mohali.”

 

                        It has been further averred by the complainant that after receiving the said information, he approached the Ops for refund of fee & compensation etc. but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant rather they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, having no alternative, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint since the complainant is not the consumer within the meaning/definition as prescribed in the Act and thus the same is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it has been urged  that the Ops never assured the complainant that after completion of MPHW course, he will get a government job or the said course is valid for Govt. job  throughout India. However, the candidates who have passed/done MPHW course  from the Para Medical Council, Punjab i.e. OP No.3 have been considered for govt. job and were issued appointment letters (Annexure R-3 to R-24).  It has been further submitted that it has nowhere been claimed in the information Brochure (Annexure R-1) or in the website of Op No.3 that after completion of MPHW course, the candidates will surely get a government job or that the OP institute is recognized by any university, Government or the Department or its students/diploma holders are entitled for government jobs on the basis of diploma/certificates issued by the Ops.  It has been submitted by the Ops that prior to the advertisement issued in the month of May-June 2012, by the office of Civil Surgeon, Yamunanagar regarding 65 posts of MPHW, the Health Department Haryana had considered number of candidates who have passed MPHW course from Para Medical Council, Punjab i.e. OP No.3, for the post of MPHW and these candidates were issued appointments by the  Civil Surgeons of various districts of Haryana as well as  by the Health Department.   But in the said advertisement published in the month of May-June 2012 regarding 65 posts of MPHW, a condition was imposed that only those candidates who have passed Diploma in MPHW(Male) from the institutes recognized by Haryana Government will be considered.   The said condition, being illegal & arbitrary was challenged by some candidates who have done MPHW (male) course from OP No.3 by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.11854 of 2012 titled as ‘Malkiat Singh & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & others’ before the Hon’ble  Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notice of motion for 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.06.2012 wherein interim directions were issued to the  State of Haryana/Civil Surgeon, Yamunanagar to accept the application forms of the petitioners mentioned in CWP and to consider the cases of said petitioners and further directed that the prohibition contained in the advertisement qua applying for appointment who have  passed the qualifying examination from institutions outside the State of Haryana and not recognized by it, would not operate against the said petitioners pending final decision of the  case  and prior to issuance of said interim discretions, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has  allowed the similar writ petition vide judgment dated 16.02.2010 delivered  in CWP No.1272 of 2009 wherein “ the state of Haryana was directed to consider the candidature  of the petitioners in the said petition for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) in accordance with law.”  It has been further submitted by the Ops that OP No.1 is affiliated to OP No.3 and is being run by OP No.2 but the Ops are not deficient in providing proper services to the complainant.  As such, the Ops have prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

3.                     To prove his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence of complainant whereas on the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith documents Annexures R-1 to R-51 in their evidence and closed the same on behalf of Ops.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  The main grouse of the complainant is that he got admission with the institute of Ops on the assurance that after doing the course of MPHW (male), he will get a Govt. Job but when the complainant applied for the post of MPHW advertised by Civil Surgeon office Yamunanagar/Health Department, Haryana, his application was not considered being ineligible for the said post due to the reasons that the institute of Ops-is not recognized by the Haryana Govt. for the said post. As such, the Ops have played fraud as well as malpractice with him and thus the Ops are deficient  in providing proper services to the complainant.

                        On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has argued that after passing the course of MPHW (male) from their institute, many candidates have been selected during the year 2011 but thereafter, the Govt. of Haryana has laid down certain conditions i.e. a person who passes the said course only from Haryana State shall be eligible for applying Govt. Job for MPHW(male) whereas the Ops never gave assurance to the complainant/students that they will get the Govt. Job on passing of the said course.  So, some students preferred CWP before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against imposing of illegal conditions and arbitrariness of the Haryana Govt. wherein the Hon’ble High  Court passed interim orders directing the Govt. of Haryana to conduct the interview of the candidates named in writ petition   appreciating its earlier  judgment dated 16.02.2010 passed in CWP No.1272 of 2009 which was allowed and directions were issued to State of Haryana to consider the candidature of petitioners for the post of MPHW Male in accordance with law. The counsel for the Ops has further argued that if the complainant feels aggrieved, then  the proper remedy is to approach the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition  and not the consumer complaint as filed by the  complainant. Counsel for the Ops further urged that the complainant has leveled allegations of playing of fraud by Ops with him in the present complaint and thus to prove such type of allegations, elaborate evidence is required which is not possible in summary trial conducted in consumer complaints.  Therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present case. To further strengthen his view, counsel for complainant placed reliance on the case law decided on 07.03.2014 by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in case titled as Dr. I.D. Kalwani Vs. T.N. Dubey & Others reported in CLT 2014(2) Pg.128 wherein it has been held that where complainant made allegations against the Ops regarding forgery,  the matter will require elaborate evidence which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.”   The counsel for the Ops further argued that Education is not a commodity  and student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable. In support of his contention, the counsel has placed reliance on citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in CPJ 2009(IV)  Pg.34 (SC) titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha, 2012(3) CPC Page 615(SC) titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & others and  case titled as Mahrishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur reported in 2010 (2) CPC Page 696 wherein it has been held that Education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there can not be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

5.                     After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering the facts & records of the present case  and appreciating the case laws  submitted by the counsel for the Ops, we are of the firm view that such type of matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Besides it,   we have also gone through the Information Brochure (Annexure R-1) wherein no assurance has been given by the Ops that a person/student who passes the course of MPHW (male) will get definitely a Govt. Job whereas they have mentioned that Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has passed an  order by allowing CWP’s No.1373 & 1272 of 2009 titled as Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others and Tofik Ahmad & others Vs. State of Haryana & others vide judgment dated 16/02/2010 wherein  the directions have been issued to the state  of Haryana “ to consider the candidature  of the petitioners for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) in accordance with law within a period of three months by interviewing the petitioners as well.”

                        In view of the legal position enunciated above, the present compliant is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and therefore, we have no option except to dismiss the same with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is granted liberty to file CWP before the Hon’ble High Court for seeking relief as granted in CWP No.1272 of 2009 or to approach the appropriate Forum/authority, if he so desires and he can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(3)SCC page 583. Copies of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT:20.3.15                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                PRESIDENT             

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                            (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                                                             MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                         (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                                            MEMBER