1. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 01.03.2012 in Appeal No. 59/2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter tate Commission 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (OP1) made assessment of Complainant/respondent educational qualification for eligibility to get admission for MBBS Course, in Opposite Party No.2 College. Accordingly, on 25.08.2007 complainant paid Rs.5,000/- charges to OP-1 towards processing fees. Subsequently, the OP 2 after considering his educational qualifications, -certificates and evaluation thereof, issued a letter (C-14) dated 31.08.2007 to the Complainant. OP-2 asked him to submit the original certificates, along with a sum of US$ 3500, in favour of Opposite Party No.1 towards tuition fee, and US$7500 towards foreign student fee., as per Annexure C-15. In pursuance of the letter C-14, deposited the aforesaid amount, with Opposite Party No.1, against two receipts issued as Annexure C-16 and C-17, besides US$1000, as registration fee, vide receipt Annexure C-18. It was stated that, on the basis letter Annexure C-14, the Opposite Parties, arranged valid visa of Philippines for the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant enrolled himself in MBBS, with Opposite Party No.2 College and successfully completed the 1st semester. While the complainant was appearing, in the last examination of the 2nd Semester i.e. Biochemistry, held on 24.10.2008, Resolution No. 491 of 2008 Annexure C-23 was circulated to the students, issued by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Republic of Philippines, in which, it was stated that the OPs had offered MBBS Program, inspite of absence of CHED memorandum order prescribing curriculum, of such program. Thereafter, the Complainant raised protest with the OPs, on various grounds but the OPs gave only false assurances and did nothing in the matter. The Commission of Higher Education vide the above resolution, resolved the abolition of MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) Program, from the year 2008-2009. It was stated that the OPs, thus, misled the Complainant, as initially, when he visited the office of OP No.1, it had supplied the brochure to him, clearly mentioning the offer of MBBS program in India, to the eligible students. It was further stated that, as per Resolution No.491 of 2008, the Complainant could not do 2nd year MBBS without first doing B.Sc. (Biology) Program (not less than 3 semesters and one summer). It was further stated that B.Sc (Biology) program was neither a part of MBBS curriculum, nor of the contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that a protest was raised by the Complainant, in respect of the aforesaid circular, on the ground, that he had to spend additional amount of Rs.3 lakhs for doing 1 -2 years of his bright career; that after successfully doing B.Sc.(Biology) degree, he will have to appear in a validating examination, for becoming eligible to sit in the 2nd year MBBS Program; that he was being downgraded to a lower course i.e. from professional to academic, and that he was kept in dark in all aspects. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the OPs, amounted to unfair trade practice, which represented falsely to the Complainant about their services. It was further stated that even the OPs, were deficient, in rendering service, as there was clear cut shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance. The OPs were, many a time, asked to refund the fee, paid by the Complainant, but OPs turned deaf ear to it. Therefore, complainant filed a complaint No. 336/2010 on 20/5/2010 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (in short District Forum) for total claim of Rs.16,94,700/ under various heads. The Petitioner / OP-1 in its version submitted that the role of OP-1 which is Global Health Care Management Institution was only that of facilitator which helped students to access quality medical education by providing information, guidance and counseling regarding various courses in Philippines. Therefore, the role of the Petitioner was over after Complainant admission in the college. The complainant was admitted in the College and successfully completed 1st semester in April 2008. He appeared in 2nd semester exams in October 2008. OP 1 also contented that at the time of admission the college was recognized by CHED. In the meantime, numerous medical colleges mushroomed in Philippines which were not following the prescribed course by CHED. Being unable to weed out such medical schools, vide resolution no. 491 of 2008 CHED scrapped the MBBS course in entire Philippines. Realizing the predicament faced by the students, vide letter dated 20.10.2008, CHED issued instructions for strict compliance for affected students. The instructions sought to accommodate all such students in the changed course structure. Therefore, Complainant returned India instead of continuing the education, and filed a consumer complaint on the ground of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The OP-1 also stated that main contention of the Complainant was that since the college was not following the prescribed course structure, CHED took back its recognition; due to which he had to pursue arts now. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under: - The OPs are, jointly & Severally, directed to refund the amount paid to them by the Complainant (US$ 3500 as Tuition Fee, US$ 7500 towards Foreign Student Fee and US$1000 as Registration Fee paid vide Annexure C-16 to C-18) i.e. net 12000 (Twelve Thousand) U.S. Dollars besides paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation for the physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him at their hands. They are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum the OP-1 filed an Appeal before State Commission as FA 59/2012 on 16.02.2012.The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. Hence, filed this Revision Petition contending that n the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal by ignoring the principles laid down by Honle Supreme Court with regard to the maintainability of Consumer Complaint against an educational institution. And also the impugned order ignored the facts that the Courts of India do not have territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action have actually arisen in Philippines and the Petitioner was neither has an agent nor a branch office in Chandigarh in India. 6. The counsel for both parties vehemently argued the matter and reiterated the submissions made before the State Commission. 7. The OP counsel for contended that the Courts in India doesn have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action or a part of it hasn arisen in India and the complainant was studying in Philippines. OP further contention was that it is a settled law about the policy decision of the State can be a subject matter of consumer dispute; therefore the Petitioner can be held liable for scrapping of MBBS course by the Government as it is a matter of policy decision; OP 1 made reliance on a case N.C.A. Group Vs. Housing Commissioner Punjab Housing Development Board III (1997) CPJ 88(NC). 8. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, OP No.1 was only a facilitator, in getting admission of the complainant to the MBBS Course in the college of OP No.2. It was further contended that fees which was deposited by the complainant, with OP No.1, was sent to OP No.2. It was further submitted that, at time of admission the MBBS Course was recognized, in the College of OP No.2 and the first semester of the program was cleared by the complainant. The Counsel for OP asserted that OP No.1 should not be blamed, if the Government of Philippines took decision to abolish MBBS Program, for the year 2008-09, hence under these circumstances, there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 9. It is not disputed that, the OP-1 did assessment and confirmed the eligibility of complainant for MBBS course in college of OP-2; thereafter the complainant deposited fees. But it is pertinent to note that the OP-2 College was not following the curriculum issued by Commission of Higher education, Govt of Philippines which was issued at the time of admission. The Annexure OP-1/4 is the Resolution No.491 of 2008 was submitted by OP-No 1.The relevant portion reproduced as below: HEREAS, a number of medical schools in the Philippines have offered the MBBS Program in spite of the absence of a CHED Memorandum Order prescribing the curriculum of such program; WHEREAS, the offering of such degree without the corresponding CHED-approved curriculum has led to concern and confusion regarding the capability to practice medicine in the Philippines and abroad WHEREFORE, upon motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried, the Commission EN Banc adopted to resolve as follows: RESOLVE, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Commission approves the abolition of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Program effective S.Y. 2008-2009. 10. Therefore, it is evident that the approved curriculum of HEDwas not being adopted by OP No.2 College. It was, under these circumstances, that the MBBS Course, in which the Complainant took admission, through OP No.1, in the College of OP No.2 was abolished. Thereafter, those admitted MBBS students of OP-2 College were compelled to join B.Sc (Biology). This course was for a period more than three semesters and one summer or a minimum total of 92 units. Annexure A1 is the document supplied to the complainant, relating to the MBBS Course being run by OP No.2.It shows the heading ccreditations it was mentioned as t is granted full accreditation by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). It is also fully recognized and listed by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), USA. 11. But in reality and fact, OP-2 was not following the approved curriculum of CHED for running the MBBS Program. Knowing those facts OP obtained fee from him, for facilitating admission in such Course. It becomes crystal clear that the petitioner / (OPs) intention was to mint money. As a result of which, complainant career was spoiled OP No.1 cannot wriggle out of the predicament, created by it, by saying that it was only a facilitator. Therefore, OP-1 produced misleading information; it was not only deficient in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances, both the OPs were rightly jointly and severally held liable to refund the fee, deposited by the Complainant. We rely upon the Judgment of this commission in the First Appeal 199/2009 Ashirwad Health & Education Trust & ors Vs. Mr. SLM Ahmed decided on 1/3/2013. Similar facts were dealt in the said judgment and Honle Justice J.M. Malik (one of us) stated in strong words hat the appellant has definitely tried to mint money by leading the gullible people up the garden path and held petitioner responsible for huge deficiency in service which has resulted in playing with the careers of young children 12. Under these circumstances and reasons recorded we do not find any illegality in the order of District Forum and State Commission. Hence, this revision petition has no merit which deserved to be dismissed with no order as to cost.