DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.528/2010

Miss Asha Nadar

D/o Shri Harbir Singh

R/o RZ-42-A, Dharampura Colony,

Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110042                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Hospital

& Ayurvedic Research Institute,

through its Director

Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024                      ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      04.08.2010      Date of Order    :      03.01.2018

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

        Case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant had deposited Rs.27,500/- towards admission fee and Rs.500/- as security, totalling to Rs.28,000/- vide receipt No.4060 dated 24.07.08 with the OP to pursue General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) course. It is stated that the complainant due to her own personal problem did not join the said GNM course and immediately asked for the refund of the said admission fee and security. The complainant visited the office of OP for the refund of amount and also for the return of the original certificates.  The OP only returned the original certificates but did not refund the amount.  Thereafter, the grand maternal father of the complainant Mr. Amar Singh made two complaints  dated 16.04.2010 and 07.05.2010 for refund of the said money but the OP only refunded the security amount of Rs.500/- on 07.05.2010 but did not refund the amount of Rs.27,500/- which was deposited towards admission fee.  After that the complainant issued a demand notice dated 31.05.2010 to the OP which was replied by the OP vide its reply dated 28.06.2010 wherein the OP refused to refund the admission fee on the false and misconceived grounds that if a student leaves the course before the completion of GNM course and the institute suffers losses on this account such as institute  could not fill the vacancy, the admission fee cannot be refunded but in the reply the OP did not mention that it had suffered any losses or that the seat remained vacant and it could not be filled by the OP. Hence, pleading gross deficiency in service this complaint has been filed for issuing direction to the OP to refund the admission fee of Rs.27,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 24.07.2008 till realization with reasonable compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant and also costs of the present proceedings.

          OP in the written statement/reply has inter-alia stated that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on the ground of non-joinder/mis joinder of the parties as the complainant took admission in GNM course of Smt. J.R.T. School of Nursing but JRT School of Nursing has not been impleaded as party. It is submitted that the complainant applied and took admission in the GNM course after fully reading and understanding terms and conditions of the admission as mentioned in the prospectus of the year 2008. In clause 5 it was clearly stated that after the completion of admission procedure, if a student discontinues the course, fees and mess charge paid by the student will not be refunded.  It is submitted that after completion of admission process, despite several telephonic calls the complainant failed to join the course for the reason best known to her. The complainant took admission in the year 2008 and first time made communication in the year 2010 that she discontinued the admission and requested for refund of fee after almost two years of admission. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

No rejoinder has been filed by the complainant. 

Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant. None has appeared to advance oral arguments on behalf of the OP despite opportunity given in this behalf.

It is admitted fact that after taking the admission in the course, the complainant did not join the course/ classes and asked the OPs to refund the fee. There is material on the record to show that as per the stipulation made in the prospectus of the year 2008 (clause-5), after the completion of admission procedure, if a student discontinues the course, fee and mess charges, the same were not refundable to him/ her.

There is no denial to the fact that after completion of the admission process, the OP had made several telephone calls to the complainant to join the course but she did not do so and it was for the first time that the complainant contacted the OP in the year 2010 to refund her fee. The copy of the prospectus for the year 2008 has been filed on the record as exhibit OP-1/1 and the column “other fees” para-5 of  the said clause is relevant and the same is reproduced as hereunder:-

5. ….

*Fees and other charges once paid by the students will not be refunded under any circumstances (whether the session has started or not). In case of failure of a student to pay the above mentioned fee/ or charges before the due date of payment as fixed by the management, the admission of the student concerned shall automatically deemed to be cancelled.”

The contract was binding on the complainant. She was bound to be governed by the said stipulation contained in the prospectus for the year 2008. Therefore, we hold that she was/ is not entitled to refund of fee. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 03.01.18.