O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner is a nurse and she is in search of job chances for working as nurse in foreign countries. The opposite party made advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily on 26..6..2005 offering that there are job chances for nurses in England for which<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> NMC registration is required and the opposite party, without paying money in advance, arranging NMC registration to the nurses. The petitioner contacted the opposite party at their Kaduthuruthy office with relevant copies of the documents on the very next day. According to the petitioner in contrast to the advertisement the opposite party asked the petitioner to remit a cheque for Rs. 19,700/- as consideration for their services, for NMC registration. The petitioner states that on enquiry it is revealed to the petitioner that arrangement of getting NMC registration from England is not through lawful means so the petitioner on 19..8..2005 sent registered notice to the opposite party requesting them to return the cheque amount of Rs. 19700/- forthwith intimating the opposite party about the petitioners intention to withdraw from the arrangements of NMC registration from U.K. The petitioner filed petition before the Ernakulam Forum. The petition was dismissed for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service so, he prays for refund of the amount of Rs. 19700/- along with its interest amount of Rs. 1500/-. He also claims for compensation at the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with costs of the proceedings and damages.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either on or law or on facts they admitted that they had given advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily with regard to the NMC registration. Opposite party contented that the petitioner had given notice with regard to the prerequests rules for NMC registration. Petitioner had not don things as per the prerequests for getting pack/kit for NMC registration. The opposite party contented that<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> they have not committed any act of deficiency the opposite party hadgiven registration pack /kit in time as agreed. They contented that offered consideration for the service was given by the opposite party after 20 days of the service. The opposite party sent the pack/kit for NMC registration, which was received from them U.K after remitting the required fee for that, but the petitioner has not accepted pack/ kit issued by the opposite party. So, the opposite party on 29..7..2005, 11..8..2005 and 16..8..2005 intimated the petitioner and her husband to accept the pack/kit. The registered pack/kit sent to the opposite party by post was returned with an endorsement “refused”. According to the opposite party the amount which is given by the petitioner was advanced in England and thus NMC registration pack was sent to the petitioner. So, they cannot repay the said amount which was already advanced. Opposite party contended that the petitioner has not renewed her nursing council registration after October 1995. So the registration of the petitioner is not valid so she retract from registering NMC in U.K. Even on 23..12..2005 NMC (U.K) authority issued a reminder to the petitioner for filing the duly filled application Forum. The opposite party reminded the husband of the petitioner with regard to the reminder received from U.K, in telephone. But the petitioner has not taken any steps to file the application form. The opposite party contended that the opposite party is not a recruiting the agency and they had not so far offered any job opportunity to anybody, they are only doing transfer of information they received from the internet. So the opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petitioner with their costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in servic e on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A2 on the side of the petitioner Ext. B1 to B10 on the side of the opposite party. <br /> Point No. 1<br /> The opposite party produced a prospectus of the opposite party society the said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 the pre requsite for registration of Nursing and Midwifery council in United Kindgom is mentioned as the 5th guide line it is mentioned that the applicant who have a valid N.M.C registration from Nursing Council is eligible for registration of Nursing and Midwifery council in United Kingdom. The opposite party as per the petitioner's request materialised the pack/kit for N.M.C registration and sent it under registered post to the petitioner in her address. The petitioner had not accepted the same and on 1..10..2005 she refused the registered article and the unclaimed pack is produced before the Forum and the said document is marked as Ext. B8. The opposite party has also produced a letter dated 17..11..2005 issued by the business Manager, N.M.C London Registration Department, the said document is marked as Ext. B10. As per Ext. B10 the business managerrequested the petitioner for submission of required documents. The opposite party produced a copy of the Nursing certificate of registration of the petitioner the said document is marked as Ext. B9. From the back side of Ext. B9 document it can be seen that the registration of the petitioner is not renewed from 15th March, 1993. The opposite party has produced an agreement<br /> <br /> -5-<br /> executed between the petitioner and the opposite party the said document is marked as Ext. B3 document. From Ext. B3 it can be seen that the cheque for an amount of Rs.19700/- is dated 30..7..2005. If the petitioner had any objection with regard to further proceedings would have definitely issued stop payment to the concerned bank. So, the opposite party's argument that the petitioner is seeking time for renewal of Nursing registration is much probable. So, no deficiency can be attributed against the opposite party for the laches on the part of the petitioner. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, the petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case No cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June, 2008.