BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    24^th DAY OF APRIL 2019

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to refund the amount by the OPs collected in advance towards the fees and charges for studying in BAMS course (2011 to 2015-16) against the mandates of the University for a sum of Rs.3,83,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the delay caused in returning the documents and thereby preventing the complainant from pursuing any other educational courses to further her career; running the institution without proper sanction, to pay cost of this lis and such other reliefs.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant was a student of BAMS course (2011-12) (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) at the “M/s Ramakrishna Ayurvedic Medical College” (OP-1) run by “Sri Balaji Education Trust” (OP-2) and affiliated to M/s.Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka.  OPs had claimed that they were recognized by the Government of Karnataka and the Central Council of Indian Medicine, Department of Ayush, New Delhi.  Complainant was admitted to the first year BAMS course for the 2011-16 batch, however had to withdraw from the course and terminate studies, while undergoing the second year BAMS, November 2013, on medical grounds.  Apart from intimating the decision to discontinue studies with medical records, the complainant through her father submitted an application on 02.12.2013, reiterating the complainant’s decision to discontinue the course and seeking return of her certificates of the qualifying examinations and refund of proportionate fees collected in advance for the future.  Complainant lured and inspired by the extensive advertisement by the OPs, had applied for admission to the first year BAMS professional course offered by OP-1 in 2011-12.  OP-1 admitted the complainant to the course, under intimation letters, captioned as “provisional admission letters” dated 27.06.2011 and 17.08.2011 under ref. RAMC.23/2011-12.

Complainant while being admitted to the BAMS course for the academic year 2011-12, at the M/s.Ramakrishna Ayurvedic Medical College, the college office handed over a memorandum styled as “Expenditure estimate”, describing in detail, the fees and ancillary expenses, to be incurred for the course.  OP-1 and the administrator insisted and compelled the complainant and complainant’s father Mr.Muralimohandas, to pay the entire fees and expenses.  Though the complainant’s father wanted to know why the fees and expenses for the future is also being demanded by the college, besides fees for the first year BAMS, he was told that the admission being provisional, complainant had to pay the entire fees in order to secure the admission.  This complainant believing the same to be true and out of compulsion, paid Rs.5,08,000/- against a total outlay of Rs.5,31,000/- stipulated in the “expenditure estimate” memorandum.  The details of the payment made by the complainant at the time of admission, is as follows:

Among the payments mentioned above though the OPs had not issued receipts as to payments Nos.1 & 2, they have acknowledged the same in the file of the complainant.  That the complainant made payments upto 28^th November 2013.  The complainant had paid further amounts while at the college, those payments have not been taken into account, as the same was made towards hostel and mess charges and under various other miscellaneous heads.  However the complainant, after joining the course, developed Cardiac problems and had to be virtually on medical support at different hospitals, periodically and hence could not attend classes for most of the year 2012.  Medical treatment was availed from St. Johns Medical College hospital and the OP-2 hospital as well.  Though the complainant underwent prolonged treatment, there was no improvement in the condition.  The consequent forced absence, from the studies had put heavy stress and strain on the complainant and eventually, found it difficult to continue studies.  So much so, in November 2013, the complainant had to abruptly quit her studies at the OPs college and return home, to purse medical treatment, after intimation to OP-1 through a letter sent with supporting medical reports, earlier in September 2013.

That the complainant has been suffering from a Cardiac problem diagnosed as “Tachy Brady Syndrom” (diagnosed by Dr.C.Somanathan, Chief Consultant Cardiologist & Interventionalist at M/s.MES Memorial Co-operative Hospital & Research Centre, Perintalmanna) and was advised prolonged treatment and to refrain from heavy stress and strain.  The symptoms related to the illness viz. dizziness, fainting, palpitation, difficulty in breathing etc., experienced by complainant had affected complainant’s studies and more so, her morale to withstand the pressures connected with a medical course.  The complainant had to undergo intense treatment under the aforesaid Dr.C.Somanathan at the EMS Memorial Co-operative Hospital.  Eventually it was on realizing that she could not carry on with the pursuit of the medical degree at the OPs College, the complainant had to terminate her studies there.  Accordingly the complainant’s father under her instructions, sent a letter dated 02.12.2013 to the OPs reiterating her decision to discontinue her studies and demanding the return of the original documents regarding her qualifying examination, submitted at the time of admission and for the refund of the fees paid for future under compulsion.  Apart from the letter dated 02.12.2013 an e-mail was also sent to the OPs in this regard.  There was no response to the demands made from the OPs.  However the OP-1 in response to a phone call on the subject by the complainant directed the complainant to appear before him at the college on 18^th January 2014.  Though the complainant had appeared at the college as directed, she was asked to report at the office again on 10^th February 2014, for the return of the documents and refund under the pretext that the university inspection was in progress at that time.  The complainant on the next visit to the college on 10^th February 2014 was asked to sign a letter to the University Registrar for the return of documents and was finally assured by the OP-1 that the complainant would get back the documents along with the refund within 10 days.

Inspite of the assurances, there was no compliance and hence the complainant was constrained to issue a notice through her counsel, on 10^th March 2014 demanding the return of documents and the refund of the proportionate fees collected for future, after deducting the fees for the course undergone for 15 months.  Though the notice was served on the OPs, they have not replied.  However the complainant was informed by OP-1 through e-mail on 21^st October 2014 that the documents could be collected from the college office, though the message had wrongly claimed that the OP-1 had tried on several occasions to contact the complainant.  No such contact had been made as claimed.  In any case, the complainant’s father Mr.Muralimohandas presented himself at the college office on 3^rd November 2014, in pursuance of the e-mail and demanded for the return of the certificates.  OP-1 however, curtly replied that the documents could be returned only if an undertaking is furnished, relinquishing all further claims.  Further, the OPs held out a warning that the complainant would not get either a ‘good conduct certificate’ or a transfer certificate, required for her future.  The complainant’s father was compelled by OP-2 staff member Mr.Anil Nair and finally out of compulsion, the complainant’s father furnished an undertaking, as dictated by them and only thereafter OPs handed over the documents along with a ‘transfer certificate’.  Though the complainant’s father sought refund of the fees claimed in the notice, the OPs had declined the request.  Complainant has received the documents through her father.  She has done it under protest and does not approve the undertaking, complainant’s father has executed, relinquishing her legal rights.  The long delay in delivering the certificates, regarding the qualifying examination of the complainant and the refusal to refund the fees collected by the OPs for the entire course which was not mandated by the laws of the university as well as the Central Council of Indian Medicines on the part of the OPs, inspite of the demand to return the refund is ‘deficiency in services’.  Besides, it is learnt that OPs had not obtained the recognition and sanction from the Central Council of Indian Medicine, for the course, required to be obtained every year.  Having claimed recognition through the prospectus the failure regarding the same, has to be reckoned as deficiency in service.  As the principal of the college, who represents the OP-1 and being the educational agency running the institution, OP-2 were bound by law to provide quality service to the student community in accordance with the rules and regulations of the university and as directed by the Central Council of Indian Medicines.  The failure of the OPs to return the certificates in time, besides, had prevented the complainant from pursuing any other form of vocation/education, which her health permitted for more than an year.  The mental agony to which the complainant was put to and the loss of more than an year in her career is solely due to the callous indifference of the OPs.  Under the circumstances the complainant is entitled under law to the refund of the fees collected in advance, against the mandates of law, after the deduction of the fees due for the course undergone for 15 months and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OPs for running the institution without proper sanction/recognition and for the long delay in returning the certificates of the qualifying examination and thereby, preventing her from pursuing a career and causing her mental agony and it is prayed accordingly for an award from this Forum.  Hence this complaint.

3. After receipt of notice, OPs did appear through its counsel but did not file version.  Hence it was taken as version not filed.  As against the said order OPs preferred No.1062/2015 before the Hon’ble State Commission.  The same was came to be allowed and passed the following order:

1. The appeal shall be treated as a revision in the same number and the revision is hereby allowed with a cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be payable by the appellant to the respondent/complainant before the DF on the next date of hearing.

2. Both parties are directed to appear before the DF voluntarily on 26.03.2018 on which date the matter is posted before the DF.

3. The District Forum shall take the version of appellant/Ops on file and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law by extending an opportunity to both sides.

4. Forward free copies to both the parties.

It appears that the OP has not complied the said orders hence this Forum by its order dated 26.03.2018 stated that the OPs neither appear before the Forum nor complied the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission which goes to show that they have no regards to the orders passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.  Hence OPs have failed to comply the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.  The version filed by them cannot be taken on record and posted the matter for arguments on 12.04.2018.  Hence this Forum is declined to place reliance on the contents of the version filed by the OP.

4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant submitted her affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  OPs have not filed the affidavit evidence.  Complainant produced written arguments.  Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.  No oral arguments addressed by the OPs.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as version filed by the OPs.  At the first instance we would like to know the settled proposition of law in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said Islamic Academy of Education wherein at para-8 held as under:

8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us is whether the Hon. Supreme Court in para-8 in the case of ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA has ruled that a college cannot demand or collect fees when a student has left the college in midstream or not.

8. Looking to the contents of para-8 of the judgment the education institution was collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be utilize by the institution.  The balance fees must be kept invested in the fixed deposits in a nationalized bank.  As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution.  The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due.  At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.  Now we would like to place reliance with regard to the amount paid by the complainant as stated in para-3 of the complaint is as follows:

9. Among the payments mentioned above, the complainant has stated that OPs have not issued receipts as to payments Nos.1 & 2 i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/-.   So it is for the complainant to prove it by adducing evidence.  Absolutely there is no evidence to show that she has paid amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 29.09.2011.  With regard to Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned the complainant has placed reliance on the provisional admission letter dated 27.06.2011 found at ink page No.17 on the back page of it there is an endorsement stating that received Rs1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only towards admission of Bhanupriya C.P).  We have gone through the contents of the said receipt, which does not inspire the confidence of this Forum as merely putting an endorsement is not a proof.  According to the complainant the fees paid by her as stated in para-3 of the complaint at serial No.1 and 2 found to be false since there are no any valid receipts in respect of paying Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/-.  With regard to the caution deposit of Rs.20,000/- dated 29.09.2011 and an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- towards fee dated 24.10.2011 and Rs.20,000/- on 21.02.2012 towards university deposit collected by the college and also the amount paid in other receipt are in respect of mess bill for the period of 2011-12 for the first and second semester.  On meticulous scrutiny of the contents of the documents produced by the complainant at document No.1 to 21 which are no way related in respect of collecting the alleged advance fee of the entire period of 5 years.  When such being the fact the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount paid by her which relates to semester 1 and 2.  Further it is an admitted fact that she has attended first and second semester.  Under such circumstances we do not find any deficiency of service much less the alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

          10. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.  Looking to the circumstances of case, parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 24^th day of April 2019)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 07.08.2015.

Bhanupriya

Documents produced by the complainant:

   Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties - Nil

Document produced by the Opposite parties:

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*