Haryana

StateCommission

A/80/2016

DEEPAK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.D.M.DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. - Opp.Party(s)

SHAKTI SINGH

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No   :      80 of 2016

Date of Institution:     27.01.2016

Date of Decision :      04.07.2016

 

Deepak Kumar s/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Resident of Hassanpur, Tauru, Mewat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      The Principal P.D.M. Dental College & Research Institute Sarai Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana.

2.      The Registrar, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Aditya Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ramesh Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated December 15^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Deepak Kumar-complainant/ appellant,          got admission in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS), with P.D.M. Dental College & Research Institute Sarai Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh-Opposite Party No.1, which is affiliated with Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak-Opposite Party No.2. He was admitted in the Session of 2010-2011. He appeared in the examination of Ist year but failed. The opposite parties/respondents, as per University Calendar (Regulations and Ordinances), allowed the complainant to attend the classes of 2^nd year. He appeared in the supplementary exams for Ist Year, held in December, 2011, July 2012, December 2012 and July 2013 but failed in all subjects. Resultantly, as per Clause 6.8 of Ordinance No.13 of the University Calendar (Regulations and Ordinances), the complainant was discharged from the Course. The complainant sought refund of fee which the opposite parties refused to refund. Hence complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed. 

3.      The opposite parties/respondents in their reply pleaded that the complainant/appellant was discharged from the College as per the regulations of the University because he could not pass the examination of Ist Year BDS course in three years. It was prayed that the complainant is not entitled to refund of fee, thus complaint be dismissed.

4.      It is admitted case of the complainant that he could not pass Ist Year examination of BDS Course in three years.  So, as per Clause 6.7 and 6.8 of Ordinance No.13 of the University Calendar (Regulations and Ordinances), the opposite parties discharged the complainant from the course. For ready reference, the relevant portions of Clause 6.7 and 6.8 are reproduced as under:-

“6.7   xxx

          A person who has passed the Ist BDS examination of this University shall be eligible to join 2^nd year of BDS class. However, a candidate who fails in Ist BDS examination may be allowed to attend the 2^nd year of BDS class but will not be allowed to appear in the 2^nd BDS examination till he passes in all the subjects of Ist BDS examination.

          A person who has passed the 2^nd of BDS examination of this University shall be eligible to join 3^rd year of B.D.S. class. However, a candidate who fails in 2^nd B.D.S. examination may be allowed to attend the 3^rd year of B.D.S. class but will not be allowed to appear in the 3^rd B.D.S. exam, till he passes in all the subjects of 2^nd B.D.S. Examination.

          A person who has passed the 3^rd BDS examination of this university shall be eligible to join fourth BDS class. However, a candidate who fails in 3^rd BDS examination may be allowed to attend 4^th BDS class but will not be allowed to appear in the 4^th year BDS examination till he passes in all the subjects of 3^rd BDS class.

          xxxxx

6.8    Any student who does not clear the first B.D.S. University exam in all subjects within three years from the date of admission shall be discharged from the course.”

5.      The complainant is seeking refund of fee paid for 2^nd and 3^rd years B.D.S. Course. It is not of the complainant that he did not attend the classes of 2^nd and 3^rd years’ course. Indisputably, the complainant did not clear 1^st year B.D.S. examination and therefore he was discharged from the course in view of Clause 6.7 and 6.8 of University Calendar (Regulations and Ordinances) reproduced above. Once, the complainant has attended the classes of 2^nd and 3^rd years B.D.S. course, therefore, he cannot seek refund of the fee paid by him of that period.

6.      In view of the above, it is not possible to hold that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for discharging the complainant from the course. So, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 04.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL