Prvesh Play School V/S Suma V.R - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/1207

Suma V.R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prvesh Play School - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/1207

Suma V.R						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Prvesh Play School						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009 DISPOSED ON: 10.11.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 10th NOVEMBER 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1207/2009 COMPLAINANT Suma V.R., W/o Mr. V.Manoharan, Aged 35 years, Residing at No.75, Maruthi Layout, Adj. to AECS Layout C Block, Kundalahally, Marathally Post, Bangalore 560 037. Advocate: Sri Prashant Kumar V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Pravesh Play School, A Pre-School and Day Care Facility Centre and having its place of business at 759, C-Block, A.E.C.S. Layout, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by its Headmistress Smt. Padma Rajashekharan. Advocate: Sri Lakshman Murthy O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.9,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassment, hardship and suffering undergone by the complainant on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief: Is that the during the month of April 2008 the complainant got admitted her son Master Sanjeeth aged 2 years 10 months in the OP play school and paid the admission fee. Master Sanjeeth was regularly attending school from June 2008. On July 17, 2008 OP called upon the complainant intimating her that her son suffered from learning disorders and development problems including inadequate speech during his attendance of the play school. This caused mental shock and agony to the complainant and her husband due to the panic created by this communication. OP informed the complainant that the child was assessed by Ms. Anuradha Shyam, special educator whose findings regarding the above mentioned developmental disorders were orally communicated to the complainant. The copy of the assessment report of Master Sanjeeth was furnished to the complaint and the complainant was asked to get a further assessment of their child done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth a leading speech language pathologist. The complainant interacted personally Dr. Pratibha Karanth and they were told that the child had no such learning / developmental disorders apart from minor speech related issues, which could be corrected at home. The facts regarding COM-DEAL program were orally conveyed to the OP; for which OP insisted for signed copy of the report. The signed report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth was received by the complainant in the month of September 2008, but the complainant was asked to remove her son from the play school in August 2008. The report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth clearly reflects that the report issued by the special educator was misleading. The distorted analysis of the OP also casted aspersions on the abilities of Master Sanjeeth who is a normal child who deserves education like any normal child. The assessment report by Dr. Pratibha Karanth does not mention that Master Sanjeeth cannot continue his education in a normal school. The complainant was not even given the chance to produce the report Dr. Pratibha Karanth before she was asked to remove her son from play school. The forcible removal of Master Sanjeeth added to the anxiety and agony of the complainant. This act of the OP considerably hampered the development of Master Sanjeeth. Due to the suggestion of the OP to remove Master Sanjeeth from the play school; the complainant had no alternative but to remove her child as she felt helpless. The OP continued with its malicious intentions and refused to refund the fee which was paid at the time of admission. The refusal to return the fee amount to unjust and enrichment of the OP at the cost of the complainant. Master Sanjeeth had to go through the rigors of admission process again in the middle of the academic year due to his forceful removal from the play school by OP. The complainant had to incur additional expense of Rs.6,300/- for getting her son admitted to another play school. Master Sanjeeth got admission in another school AECS layout, where till date no complaints have been made on his development which clearly highlights the distortion in OPs analysis of Master Sanjeeths abilities. The legal notice along with reports of Ms. Anuradha Shyam and Dr. Pratibha Karanth demanding refund of the fees was issued to the OP, OP has sent a reply denying of the contents of the notice, hence complainant is seeking the above stated reliefs. 3. OP on appearance filed version admitting that Master Sanjeeth the son of the complainant was given admission in OP play school and the complainant paid the required admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and monthly fee amounting to Rs.3,000/- for three months from the June 2008 to August 2008. OP informed the complainant that the admission fee of Rs.6,000/- which includes stationery, equipment and admission is non-refundable under any circumstances. OP also informed that the pre-school and the fee structure as above was only for the session 9-00 am to 12-00 noon for five days a week i.e., Monday to Friday. The complainant and her husband requested for the continued service of OPs CRECHE for Master Sanjeeth from 12-00 noon to 6-00 pm for five days a week i.e., Monday to Friday. OP informed the fee structure for the service of CRECHE for the above duration was Rs.13,000/- inclusive of Rs.6,000/- non-refundable amount for admission, stationery, equipment etc plus 3 months fee of Rs.7,500/-. The complainant and her husband paid the fee on 11.06.2008 in respect of CRECHE attached to play school and the child was spending more than 9 hours per day in the play school of the OP. The complainants child started attending the school from 2nd June 2008. The child was in the OPs institution for a period of 9 hours a day. OP after couple of days noticed the child would not interact or speak much with the other children of the OP, staff and other teachers but was healthy and playful. OP with a view to correct any anomaly in childs hesitation to speak with the best intentions requested one Mrs. Anuradha Shyam a special educator to asses the short coming if any of Master Sanjeeth and advised the complainant about her assessment. Mrs. Anuradha Shyam further advised the complainant to get a comprehensive assessment done by Dr. Prathiba Karanth a leading speech and language pathologist. The expert opinion clearly points out the anomaly requiring demonstration therapy session and it is not minor speech related issue as stated by the complainant. OP requested the parents to get the specialist assessment report and give it to her so that she can properly train the child who is in her care for over 9 hours a day. The complainant and her husband had a very non-co-operative and adamant approach to the entreaties of OP, they even refused to show the assessment report of the child. Due to the non-co-operative behavior of the complainant and her husband, the OP had no other alternative than to ask the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. When OP requested the complainant to withdraw the child, complainant and her husband threatened the OP with legal action. Therefore the situation of asking the complainant and her husband to withdraw the child from the play school was totally due to their non-co-operation with the OP. For the legal notice issued OP has replied. The demand of refund of fee is unsustainable since the child attended the school full 3 months as on the date of withdrawal as such no refund is either warranted or payable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations. The Head Mistress of OP school filed affidavit in support of the defence version. 5. After perusing the pleadings and the documents produced and affidavit of both parties and hearing on both sides the following points arise for our consideration: Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 6. Our findings to the above points are: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. It is not in dispute that the complainants son Master Sanjeeth who was then aged 2 years 10 months was admitted to OP school and he started attending the school from 2nd June 2008. Admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and tuition fee of Rs.3,000/- for three months for the month of June 2008 to August 2008 was paid at the time of admission as per the receipt dated 12.04.2008. The case of the complainant is the Head Mistress of OP school intimated her on 17th July 2008 that her son suffered from learning disorders and development problems including inadequate speech and further she was informed that the child was assessed by Ms Anuradha Shyam special educator at the school premises whose findings regarding above mentioned developmental disorders were orally communicated to her. The complainant met Ms Anuradha Shyam and collected copy of the assessment report of her son Master Sanjeeth. As suggested in the report the complainant got a further assessment of child done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth a leading speech language pathology. Dr. Pratibha Karanath told that the child has no such learning / developmental disorders apart from minor speech related issues; which could be corrected at home. Thus the complainant claims that Dr. Pratibha Karanths report dated 25.08.2008 negated the alleged disabilities suggested in Ms. Anuradha Shyams report. The report issued by the special educator was misleading. Based on that report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam OP asked her to remove her son from the play school; not even given the chance to produce the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth. This forcible removal of the child from the school without refunding fee collected amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP school. Further it is contending for the complainant that on account the child being removed from the OP school, the complainant has to get admission of the child in another play school; there is no any complaints regarding his developmental disorders in that school, as such the Head Mistress of OP school was not justified in asking the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. 8. The defence version of the OP is, the admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and monthly fee amounting to Rs.3,000/- for three months is non-refundable; the same was informed to the complainant at the time of admission. The child attended the school full for three months for which the fee was paid as such the claim for refund of fee paid is not sustainable. Further it is contended that after a couple of days of the child started attending the school OP noticed that the child would not interact or speak much with other children or the staff of OP and other teachers. Ms. Anuradha Shyam a special educator was requested to assess the short coming if any of the child; OP advised the complainant about the assessment of special educator and further advised to get assessment done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth. It is contended that the opinion of Dr. Pratibha Karanath clearly points out the anomaly requiring demonstration therapy session and it is not minor speech related issue. The complainant and her husband were non-cooperative and they refused to show the assessment report of the child issued by Dr. Pratibha Karanth. Due to the non-co-operative behavior of the parents of the child, the OP had no other alternative than to ask the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. Thus the main ground for asking the complainant to withdraw the child from the play school was due to non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband with the OP. 9. As per the observation report annexure C II dated 6th July 2008 issued by the Ms. Anuradha Shyam special educator, it is noticed that the child plays with other children but does not seem to engage in any self initiated conversation. He uses only single words (often he is answering questions not generating it). When a word was introduced and subject was asked to repeat it after a gap of 3 seconds he was unable to reproduce the word. However when asked about words he had learnt a month ago, he was able to reproduce it. Subject had difficulty in tracking an object in a straight line he stops halfway. Difficulty in sustaining eye contact often bends his head. Difficulty in executing any ambidextrous activity (closing both eyes, clapping with both hands). Difficulty in executing puzzle (motoric) and had difficulty in shape puzzles. Comprehends and responds very well to verbal instruction. He is very methodical and organised in his approach to things. Subject will benefit from a comprehensive language and occupational assessment. The remedial suggestions can then be implemented effectively both in school and home environment. It is suggested to contact Dr. Pratibha Karanth for assessment. The remedial suggestions are mentioned in the said report. 10. In the report dated 25.08.2008 of the Com Deall Trust it is stated that the child is shy child. Sustaining eye contact with the speaker for a long time is challenging for him, mainly due to his shyness. He mostly tries to communicate non verbally along with one word utterances. He demands the attention of an adult through vocalization and patting the adults hands. Lastly it is observed that the child Sanjeeth is a highly stimulable child and the gaps in his expressive language skills needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques. His parents were counselled regarding intensive speech language stimulation at home for Sanjeeth. The parents were recommended to attend demonstration therapy sessions which would provide guidelines on addressing gaps in his (child) expressive language skills and in improving self help skills. 11. After perusing both the reports we are of the view that the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth is silent regarding the observations made in the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam. Therefore it cannot be said without any basis the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam special educator was got prepared. From both the reports it becomes clear that the child Master Sanjeeth needs special attention in language skills, in the report of Com Deall Trust it is clearly mentioned that the gaps in his expressive language needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques and also recommended to attend demonstration therapy session which would provide guidelines on addressing the gaps in his expressive language skills and in improving self help skills apart from the parents counselling regarding intensive speech language stimulation at home. Under these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth negated the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam. On account of non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband the Head Mistress of OP school was not in a position to know, the contents of the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth as a result OP school requested the complainant and her husband to withdraw the child from the school. There was no any oblique motive on the part of the OP school in asking the child to be withdrawn from the school. Had the complainant and her husband co-operated in furnishing the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth to know the assessment of the child, OP school would not have asked to withdraw the child from the school. Under these circumstances we are of the view that no fault can be found with the OP school; it is only an account of non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband with the Head Mistress of OP school, in providing necessary information regarding the child assessment conducted by Dr. Pratibha Karanth, the OP school was forced in asking to withdraw the child from the school. 12. The assessment report of the child issued by the Com Deall Trust marked as annexure III is dated 25.08.2008 the same is the report of Dr. Prtibha Karanth. It is difficult to accept that the said report was not made available to the complainant when her child was asked to be withdrawn from the school so as to accept her contention that she was not given chance to produce the copy of that report; before the OP school asked child to be withdrawn from the school. When the report itself is dated 25.08.2008; the contention of the complainant that she was able to get the same in the month of September 2008 cannot be accepted. It appears that inspite of this report available the complainant has not shown the same to the Head Mistress of OP school inspite her request to show the same to find out the assessment of the child so as to provide necessary facilities for educating the child. Mainly because of the complainant in not showing this report to the Head Mistress and non-co-operative attitude made the OP school to request the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. 13. It is contended for the complainant that from the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth dated 25.08.2008 it is clear that the child had no any learning disorders and development problems; since mother tongue of the child was Malayalam, it require some time to cope up with English language to be taught in the school. The OP school failed to provide necessary education to the child as the child was normal, it could have continued in the same school. Thus it is contended that the act of Head Mistress of OP school to withdraw the child from the school without any justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service. In our view in the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth it is clearly mentioned that the gaps in the child expressive language skills needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques and also recommended to attend demonstration therapy sessions by the parents of the child which would provide guidelines on addressing the gaps in his expressive language skills and in improving self help skills. Therefore it cannot be said that as per that report there was no any development problems and learning disorders. 14. The claim of the complainant for the refund of the fee paid is un-sustainable. An amount of Rs.6,000/- was collected towards admission fee and another sum of Rs.3,000/- was collected towards tuition fee at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for the three months for the period from June 2008 to August 2008. In the receipt dated 12.04.2008 it is clearly mentioned that the amount collected is non refundable. Further the child had attended the school for full three months as on the date of withdrawal that is from the 2nd June to 28th August 2008. In view of the same there is no justification to claim for refund of the fee paid. Since the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP school as such she is not entitled to claim any compensation. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complaint filed is devoid of merits; the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of November 2009.) MEMBER PRESIDENT Snm:

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009 DISPOSED ON: 10.11.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 10th NOVEMBER 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1207/2009 COMPLAINANT Suma V.R., W/o Mr. V.Manoharan, Aged 35 years, Residing at No.75, Maruthi Layout, Adj. to AECS Layout C Block, Kundalahally, Marathally Post, Bangalore 560 037. Advocate: Sri Prashant Kumar V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Pravesh Play School, A Pre-School and Day Care Facility Centre and having its place of business at 759, C-Block, A.E.C.S. Layout, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by its Headmistress Smt. Padma Rajashekharan. Advocate: Sri Lakshman Murthy O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.9,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassment, hardship and suffering undergone by the complainant on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief: Is that the during the month of April 2008 the complainant got admitted her son Master Sanjeeth aged 2 years 10 months in the OP play school and paid the admission fee. Master Sanjeeth was regularly attending school from June 2008. On July 17, 2008 OP called upon the complainant intimating her that her son suffered from learning disorders and development problems including inadequate speech during his attendance of the play school. This caused mental shock and agony to the complainant and her husband due to the panic created by this communication. OP informed the complainant that the child was assessed by Ms. Anuradha Shyam, special educator whose findings regarding the above mentioned developmental disorders were orally communicated to the complainant. The copy of the assessment report of Master Sanjeeth was furnished to the complaint and the complainant was asked to get a further assessment of their child done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth a leading speech language pathologist. The complainant interacted personally Dr. Pratibha Karanth and they were told that the child had no such learning / developmental disorders apart from minor speech related issues, which could be corrected at home. The facts regarding COM-DEAL program were orally conveyed to the OP; for which OP insisted for signed copy of the report. The signed report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth was received by the complainant in the month of September 2008, but the complainant was asked to remove her son from the play school in August 2008. The report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth clearly reflects that the report issued by the special educator was misleading. The distorted analysis of the OP also casted aspersions on the abilities of Master Sanjeeth who is a normal child who deserves education like any normal child. The assessment report by Dr. Pratibha Karanth does not mention that Master Sanjeeth cannot continue his education in a normal school. The complainant was not even given the chance to produce the report Dr. Pratibha Karanth before she was asked to remove her son from play school. The forcible removal of Master Sanjeeth added to the anxiety and agony of the complainant. This act of the OP considerably hampered the development of Master Sanjeeth. Due to the suggestion of the OP to remove Master Sanjeeth from the play school; the complainant had no alternative but to remove her child as she felt helpless. The OP continued with its malicious intentions and refused to refund the fee which was paid at the time of admission. The refusal to return the fee amount to unjust and enrichment of the OP at the cost of the complainant. Master Sanjeeth had to go through the rigors of admission process again in the middle of the academic year due to his forceful removal from the play school by OP. The complainant had to incur additional expense of Rs.6,300/- for getting her son admitted to another play school. Master Sanjeeth got admission in another school AECS layout, where till date no complaints have been made on his development which clearly highlights the distortion in OPs analysis of Master Sanjeeths abilities. The legal notice along with reports of Ms. Anuradha Shyam and Dr. Pratibha Karanth demanding refund of the fees was issued to the OP, OP has sent a reply denying of the contents of the notice, hence complainant is seeking the above stated reliefs. 3. OP on appearance filed version admitting that Master Sanjeeth the son of the complainant was given admission in OP play school and the complainant paid the required admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and monthly fee amounting to Rs.3,000/- for three months from the June 2008 to August 2008. OP informed the complainant that the admission fee of Rs.6,000/- which includes stationery, equipment and admission is non-refundable under any circumstances. OP also informed that the pre-school and the fee structure as above was only for the session 9-00 am to 12-00 noon for five days a week i.e., Monday to Friday. The complainant and her husband requested for the continued service of OPs CRECHE for Master Sanjeeth from 12-00 noon to 6-00 pm for five days a week i.e., Monday to Friday. OP informed the fee structure for the service of CRECHE for the above duration was Rs.13,000/- inclusive of Rs.6,000/- non-refundable amount for admission, stationery, equipment etc plus 3 months fee of Rs.7,500/-. The complainant and her husband paid the fee on 11.06.2008 in respect of CRECHE attached to play school and the child was spending more than 9 hours per day in the play school of the OP. The complainants child started attending the school from 2nd June 2008. The child was in the OPs institution for a period of 9 hours a day. OP after couple of days noticed the child would not interact or speak much with the other children of the OP, staff and other teachers but was healthy and playful. OP with a view to correct any anomaly in childs hesitation to speak with the best intentions requested one Mrs. Anuradha Shyam a special educator to asses the short coming if any of Master Sanjeeth and advised the complainant about her assessment. Mrs. Anuradha Shyam further advised the complainant to get a comprehensive assessment done by Dr. Prathiba Karanth a leading speech and language pathologist. The expert opinion clearly points out the anomaly requiring demonstration therapy session and it is not minor speech related issue as stated by the complainant. OP requested the parents to get the specialist assessment report and give it to her so that she can properly train the child who is in her care for over 9 hours a day. The complainant and her husband had a very non-co-operative and adamant approach to the entreaties of OP, they even refused to show the assessment report of the child. Due to the non-co-operative behavior of the complainant and her husband, the OP had no other alternative than to ask the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. When OP requested the complainant to withdraw the child, complainant and her husband threatened the OP with legal action. Therefore the situation of asking the complainant and her husband to withdraw the child from the play school was totally due to their non-co-operation with the OP. For the legal notice issued OP has replied. The demand of refund of fee is unsustainable since the child attended the school full 3 months as on the date of withdrawal as such no refund is either warranted or payable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations. The Head Mistress of OP school filed affidavit in support of the defence version. 5. After perusing the pleadings and the documents produced and affidavit of both parties and hearing on both sides the following points arise for our consideration: Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 6. Our findings to the above points are: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. It is not in dispute that the complainants son Master Sanjeeth who was then aged 2 years 10 months was admitted to OP school and he started attending the school from 2nd June 2008. Admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and tuition fee of Rs.3,000/- for three months for the month of June 2008 to August 2008 was paid at the time of admission as per the receipt dated 12.04.2008. The case of the complainant is the Head Mistress of OP school intimated her on 17th July 2008 that her son suffered from learning disorders and development problems including inadequate speech and further she was informed that the child was assessed by Ms Anuradha Shyam special educator at the school premises whose findings regarding above mentioned developmental disorders were orally communicated to her. The complainant met Ms Anuradha Shyam and collected copy of the assessment report of her son Master Sanjeeth. As suggested in the report the complainant got a further assessment of child done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth a leading speech language pathology. Dr. Pratibha Karanath told that the child has no such learning / developmental disorders apart from minor speech related issues; which could be corrected at home. Thus the complainant claims that Dr. Pratibha Karanths report dated 25.08.2008 negated the alleged disabilities suggested in Ms. Anuradha Shyams report. The report issued by the special educator was misleading. Based on that report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam OP asked her to remove her son from the play school; not even given the chance to produce the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth. This forcible removal of the child from the school without refunding fee collected amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP school. Further it is contending for the complainant that on account the child being removed from the OP school, the complainant has to get admission of the child in another play school; there is no any complaints regarding his developmental disorders in that school, as such the Head Mistress of OP school was not justified in asking the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. 8. The defence version of the OP is, the admission fee of Rs.6,000/- and monthly fee amounting to Rs.3,000/- for three months is non-refundable; the same was informed to the complainant at the time of admission. The child attended the school full for three months for which the fee was paid as such the claim for refund of fee paid is not sustainable. Further it is contended that after a couple of days of the child started attending the school OP noticed that the child would not interact or speak much with other children or the staff of OP and other teachers. Ms. Anuradha Shyam a special educator was requested to assess the short coming if any of the child; OP advised the complainant about the assessment of special educator and further advised to get assessment done by Dr. Pratibha Karanth. It is contended that the opinion of Dr. Pratibha Karanath clearly points out the anomaly requiring demonstration therapy session and it is not minor speech related issue. The complainant and her husband were non-cooperative and they refused to show the assessment report of the child issued by Dr. Pratibha Karanth. Due to the non-co-operative behavior of the parents of the child, the OP had no other alternative than to ask the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. Thus the main ground for asking the complainant to withdraw the child from the play school was due to non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband with the OP. 9. As per the observation report annexure C II dated 6th July 2008 issued by the Ms. Anuradha Shyam special educator, it is noticed that the child plays with other children but does not seem to engage in any self initiated conversation. He uses only single words (often he is answering questions not generating it). When a word was introduced and subject was asked to repeat it after a gap of 3 seconds he was unable to reproduce the word. However when asked about words he had learnt a month ago, he was able to reproduce it. Subject had difficulty in tracking an object in a straight line he stops halfway. Difficulty in sustaining eye contact often bends his head. Difficulty in executing any ambidextrous activity (closing both eyes, clapping with both hands). Difficulty in executing puzzle (motoric) and had difficulty in shape puzzles. Comprehends and responds very well to verbal instruction. He is very methodical and organised in his approach to things. Subject will benefit from a comprehensive language and occupational assessment. The remedial suggestions can then be implemented effectively both in school and home environment. It is suggested to contact Dr. Pratibha Karanth for assessment. The remedial suggestions are mentioned in the said report. 10. In the report dated 25.08.2008 of the Com Deall Trust it is stated that the child is shy child. Sustaining eye contact with the speaker for a long time is challenging for him, mainly due to his shyness. He mostly tries to communicate non verbally along with one word utterances. He demands the attention of an adult through vocalization and patting the adults hands. Lastly it is observed that the child Sanjeeth is a highly stimulable child and the gaps in his expressive language skills needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques. His parents were counselled regarding intensive speech language stimulation at home for Sanjeeth. The parents were recommended to attend demonstration therapy sessions which would provide guidelines on addressing gaps in his (child) expressive language skills and in improving self help skills. 11. After perusing both the reports we are of the view that the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth is silent regarding the observations made in the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam. Therefore it cannot be said without any basis the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam special educator was got prepared. From both the reports it becomes clear that the child Master Sanjeeth needs special attention in language skills, in the report of Com Deall Trust it is clearly mentioned that the gaps in his expressive language needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques and also recommended to attend demonstration therapy session which would provide guidelines on addressing the gaps in his expressive language skills and in improving self help skills apart from the parents counselling regarding intensive speech language stimulation at home. Under these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth negated the report of Ms. Anuradha Shyam. On account of non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband the Head Mistress of OP school was not in a position to know, the contents of the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth as a result OP school requested the complainant and her husband to withdraw the child from the school. There was no any oblique motive on the part of the OP school in asking the child to be withdrawn from the school. Had the complainant and her husband co-operated in furnishing the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth to know the assessment of the child, OP school would not have asked to withdraw the child from the school. Under these circumstances we are of the view that no fault can be found with the OP school; it is only an account of non-co-operation of the complainant and her husband with the Head Mistress of OP school, in providing necessary information regarding the child assessment conducted by Dr. Pratibha Karanth, the OP school was forced in asking to withdraw the child from the school. 12. The assessment report of the child issued by the Com Deall Trust marked as annexure III is dated 25.08.2008 the same is the report of Dr. Prtibha Karanth. It is difficult to accept that the said report was not made available to the complainant when her child was asked to be withdrawn from the school so as to accept her contention that she was not given chance to produce the copy of that report; before the OP school asked child to be withdrawn from the school. When the report itself is dated 25.08.2008; the contention of the complainant that she was able to get the same in the month of September 2008 cannot be accepted. It appears that inspite of this report available the complainant has not shown the same to the Head Mistress of OP school inspite her request to show the same to find out the assessment of the child so as to provide necessary facilities for educating the child. Mainly because of the complainant in not showing this report to the Head Mistress and non-co-operative attitude made the OP school to request the complainant to withdraw the child from the school. 13. It is contended for the complainant that from the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth dated 25.08.2008 it is clear that the child had no any learning disorders and development problems; since mother tongue of the child was Malayalam, it require some time to cope up with English language to be taught in the school. The OP school failed to provide necessary education to the child as the child was normal, it could have continued in the same school. Thus it is contended that the act of Head Mistress of OP school to withdraw the child from the school without any justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service. In our view in the report of Dr. Pratibha Karanth it is clearly mentioned that the gaps in the child expressive language skills needs to be addressed with intensive speech language stimulation techniques and also recommended to attend demonstration therapy sessions by the parents of the child which would provide guidelines on addressing the gaps in his expressive language skills and in improving self help skills. Therefore it cannot be said that as per that report there was no any development problems and learning disorders. 14. The claim of the complainant for the refund of the fee paid is un-sustainable. An amount of Rs.6,000/- was collected towards admission fee and another sum of Rs.3,000/- was collected towards tuition fee at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for the three months for the period from June 2008 to August 2008. In the receipt dated 12.04.2008 it is clearly mentioned that the amount collected is non refundable. Further the child had attended the school for full three months as on the date of withdrawal that is from the 2nd June to 28th August 2008. In view of the same there is no justification to claim for refund of the fee paid. Since the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP school as such she is not entitled to claim any compensation. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complaint filed is devoid of merits; the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of November 2009.) MEMBER PRESIDENT Snm: