Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Complainant/petitioner obtained 44.85% marks in Chemistry, Botany and Zoology and approached Respondents No.1 and 2 for B.Sc. Nursing Course for which minimum 45% marks were required to appear in the entrance examination.  Respondents No.1 and 2 permitted the complainant to appear in the entrance examination treating her marks to be 45%.  In the entrance examination, complainant secured 80% marks.  Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.1,18,000/- to the respondents.  Later, on 27.7.2006, the Principal of Respondent No.1 called the complainant and told her that, as she had not secured 45% marks in her PUC, the University had turned down her admission to the first year examination, which was proposed to be held during August 2006.  Complainant approached the University but in vain.  Complainant approached Respondent No.2, who also expressed its helplessness.  The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and held Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to refund the tuition fee of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant; Rs.25,000/- were granted by way of damages within two months from the date of passing of the order, failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order till its realization.  It was held that the respondents were guilty of deficiency in service. 

Complainant, being not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  According to the petitioner, she should have been refunded the entire amount, which had been paid by her to the respondents.  State Commission, in its order, has recorded that the sum of Rs.1,18,000/- included the money payable for the supply of books, uniform, clinical charges, transportation, sanitary health care, accommodation, etc.  The petitioner had studied there for 10 months and during these months availed of these facilities.  The petitioner could only be ordered to be refunded the tuition fee and awarded the compensation for deficiency in service, which has been done. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissed.