M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is to the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’), in  First Appeal  No. 188/2013.  By  the  impugned  order,  the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred  by the Petitioner herein and concurred with the finding of the  District Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum, Barnala  (in short, ‘the District Forum) which, by its order dated 06.12.2012 directed  the Petitioner herein to refund an amount of ₹ 27,600/- along with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of ₹ 2,00,000/-.

2.      Succinctly put, the facts material to the case are that the Complainant, attracted by the advertisement, given by the Opposite Party, wherein it was mentioned that ‘Guru Nanak Dev Para Medical Institute’ Barnala, established by SBS Educational & Welfare Society, Barnala, under the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali, that the Institute is having the following employment generated courses,  took admission in the Diploma Course of Veterinary Pharmacy.

3.      It was averred that the Principal, Sh. Pargat Singh, confirmed the duration of  the course in his Institution and assured the Complainant that the affiliation of the said Institution was with the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali.  It was pleaded that as per the advertisement given in the Pamphlets and Brochure, the Complainant sought for admission  of  Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy  and sent a Demand Draft of ₹ 2,600/- dated 04.10.2010 and after completion of all the formalities, the Complainant deposited a sum of ₹ 4,000/- as fee for the year 2010 for  which Receipt   No. 46, dated 16.06.2010 was also issued. The Complainant  stated that he has paid the fee on the following dates, as herein under :

4.      After completion of one year, the Opposite Party released the Admit Card to the Complainant for appearing in the Annual Examination of 2011 along with the name of the Study Centre/School as GNB PMI Barnala. It was pleaded that after the completion of one year and after the examination of the 1^st year, the Complainant and other students came to know about a judgment dated 17.08.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13121 of 2009 between Para Medical Council, Mohali, Punjab Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry, Chandigarh, by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that the Institution of the Opposite Party was not affiliated or recognized by the Department.  It was averred  that  information was sought  from the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh to the effect that the students who were doing Diploma from the Institution of the Opposite Party, would be eligible for appointment as Veterinary Pharmacist in Punjab or not.  It was further averred that as per the list supplied by the Veterinary Council of India, dated 14.10.2008, the name of the Opposite Party was not found in the List of ‘Recognized Colleges’. The Complainant also stated that he had to spend ₹ 40,000/- on books and other study material and that he had to suffer mental agony and stress on hearing that the Institution was not recognized by the Department.

5.      The Opposite Party filed their Written Version and pleaded that their Institute was affiliated with Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali which was a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was further averred that the Institution has nowhere claimed in its Information Brochure or in the Advertisement that the Institute was recognized by any University, Government or by any Department and that the students are entitled for Government jobs.  It was averred that the information about Writ Petition was also clearly mentioned in the Brochure.

6.      It was pleaded that there was no Central Act to regulate the field of Para Medical Courses and that the State of Punjab does not have any State Act to regulate Para Medical Courses.  The Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali, formed a group of Expert Doctors as Committee Members to run the various Para Medical Courses.  It was also stated that Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, vide its letter dated 24.03.2008 has admitted that there is no Act with respect to the Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy and that the Department of Animal Husbandry has given training to at least 450 students in two years’ of time, but till date, those students have not been recruited on regular basis by the Government.  It was further pleaded that the Opposite Party was not sure as to whether the Veterinary Pharmacy was regulated by an Act or not,  and the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, vide his reply/letter  dated 24.08.2008 has admitted that there was no Act/Law regarding Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy. In the Written Version, the Opposite Party has given the names of some students who were employed in the Government Departments.  The Opposite Party has also stated that some of the students who have acquired Diplomas in Multipurpose Health Worker Course from Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali, have applied for the post of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) in the State of Haryana, as per the advertisement dated 07.08.2008 issued by Haryana Public Service Commission, but they were not called for interview on the ground that they have not acquired the diploma from institutions either run by Haryana Government or approved by Haryana Government.  Those students have approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,  vide Civil Writ Petition No.1272 of 2009, praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Advertisement dated 07.08.2008 vide which a condition has been imposed, that, for recruitment to the Post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) only the training course done from Institutions approved by the Government will be considered eligible or issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order directing the respondents for declaring that all Diplomas being awarded for Multipurpose Health Workers from registered institutions from other States will also be considered eligible.  The said CWP No.1272 of 2009 was allowed vide order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the State of Haryana was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the said petition for the post of Multi Health Worker (Male). There is no law/regulation for regulating the registration of paramedical field. Hence it was stated that the Opposite Party did not commit  any  act of  deficiency of  service  and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs. 

7.      Based on the evidence adduced, the District Forum while allowing the Complaint and directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.27,600/- with interest @ 9% p.a., and also ₹ 2,00,000/-, observed as follows :-

“……. It is also admitted case of the CC, that the O.P. even issued Roll number, for conducting annual examination to the diploma course and CC complete his one year with the O.P.   Surprisingly, it is admitted fact,  that despite the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the O.P. continue with the institute and did not close the institute.  It is also proved case on the file, that CC had to undergo lot of mental agony and physical harassment from the hands of the O.P.  We feel, that the version of the O.P. is absolutely absurd, vague and makes no sense.  It is proved on the file, that O.P has claimed in its information brochure, that its institute is recognized.  It is pertinent to mention here, that whatever is mentioned in the version is already been discussed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in Civil Writ Petition No. 13121 of 2009, by Hon’ble Justice Sh. K. Kannan, who has dismissed the Writ Petition of the O.P”.

A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital versus Bhupesh Khurana and others 2009 CTJ (Supreme Court) 373 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :-

“Imparting of education by a institute for consideration, falls within the ambit of its definition of “service” given in the Act and their students are “consumers” of that service”.

In view of our above discussion, it is writ large on the file, that the institute of the O.P. was not recognized.  Further, there is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence on the file from the side of the O.P., that their advertisement was not false.  We feel, that deficiency in service is proved against the O.P., as such, we allow the present complaint and order the O.P”.

8.      Aggrieved by the said order, Opposite Party preferred FA No.188/2013 before the State Commission, which, while concurring with the finding of the District Forum, observed as follows :-

“11. From the above discussion, it seems that it is a case of false advertisement on the part of OP. OP was restrained by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana from conducting any examination but they conducted the examination ignoring the order of the Hon’ble High Court. They have also circulated a misleading advertisement to attract many innocent youth like complainant very well knowing the credibility of their institute.

12. These kinds of private educational institutions like OP which are making very high claims and thereby creating big business and recover huge amounts by the way of fees. Whereas, the education is one of the most valuable services in human society but these institutions charges huge sum and appoint unqualified staff and faculty to teach a particular stream which has become just business rather than service to the society. Complainant and other students who took the admission in the institute of OP which was not recognized and approved by the Government or affiliated with any State/Central University tantamount to unfair trade practice”.

9.      Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Complainant had joined the course in the year 2010 and has attended  the College for one year, till 2011 and later withdrew voluntarily. He vehemently submitted that there is no law in the State of Punjab which stipulates any kind of approvals for such a course and that the Para Medical Institute gives a Degree and the candidates who passed out from the Institute got jobs in the Government Sector and that the Complainant is gainfully employed. He further submitted that the Complainant had voluntarily left  the course without ascertaining that the other students were gainfully employed. 

10.    Learned Counsel for the Respondent also filed written submissions.

11.    The facts not in dispute are that the Complainant had taken admission for the course of Veterinary Pharmacy in the Opposite Party Institute and has also paid an amount of  ₹ 27,600/- towards Examination Fee for the First Year.  A brief perusal of the Brochure of the Petitioner herein shows that the Opposite Party Institution is affiliated to Para Medical  Council, Punjab, Mohali and that the students who took training from this  recognized  Veterinary Pharmacy shall be eligible for all jobs.  It is mentioned in Column ‘d’ that before commencing the Veterinary Pharmacy, the Animal Husbandry Department had to take necessary  permission from the Government of Punjab, in implementing the courses. 

12.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana, I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC), at paras 31 & 33 of its judgment, held as under :

              31. This is an admitted position that the appellant institute is neither affiliated with the Magadh University nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. In absence of affiliation by the Magadh University and recognized by the Dental Council of India, the appellant institute could not have started admissions in the four years degree course of BDS. The Commission after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties rightly came to the conclusion as under:

                 "To our mind, the contention is unfounded. Reading the advertisement and prospectus as a whole, there is no manner of doubt that the impression given was that the College was affiliated with the Magadh University and was recognized by the Dental Council of India. If the College has not been affiliated and recognized, there was no occasion in admitting the students and wasting their valuable academic years. Moreover, the opposite parties have been admitting the students right from the year 1991-92 upto the year 1995 on this representation that the College was affiliated and recognized by the Dental Council of India. It cannot be denied that without affiliation to the Magadh University and recognition granted by the V, the so-called dental degree of BDS is just a useless piece of paper. The representation given in the advertisement that the College was under Magadh University and by the Dental Council of India could be taken by a common person to mean that the college had been given recognition by the Dental Council of India and was affiliated to the Magadh University.”

                 33.  The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS Course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognized for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, which defines the `deficiency' as under:

                 “‘Deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

13.    In the instant case, it was concurrently found by both the fora below that the Petitioner herein had failed to substantiate, by means of any documentary  evidence that the Petitioner Institute was recognized by the Government in any manner  and was affiliated with any State or Central University.  

14.    The State Commission has relied on the List of Recognized Colleges exhibited by the Complainant, in which the name of the Petitioner Institute was missing. The State Commission has also extracted Para 9 of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in which it has stated as follows :

“We have already observed that under the so-called Para Medical Institutes under the banner of the so-called Para Medical Institutes, they have enlisted students for admission into diploma courses for Veterinary Pharmacy. The Central Veterinary Council Act definitely controls all veterinary institutes in India and it shall be impermissible for anyone to have any courses through any institute that is not registered and enlisted in First Schedule of Veterinary Council Act of 1984. In Punjab, the Punjab Veterinary Council was established under the Punjab Veterinary Council Act of 1981. The first Punjab Council came into existence during the year, 1983 and the State Council continued to be constituted as per the State Act till the year 1993 when the Punjab Vidhan Sabha through a unanimous resolution extended the Indian Veterinary Council Act of 1984 of the State of Punjab and repeated the State Act of 1981. Therefore, the Punjab State Veterinary Council remains constituted under the Central Act and the notification to the said extent had also been issued under the Indian Veterinary Council Act of 1984. The Central body and the respective State Councils regulate veterinary practice and provides for the establishment of a Central Vigilance Council and the State Vigilance Councils and prepares and maintains registers of practitioners. In the face of such an enactment, it shall be futile for the petitioners to contend that under the banner of Para Medical Institutes, they have a right to offer certificate or diploma courses for Veterinary Pharmacy. There can be no affiliation to a firm or educational institution which is not recognized in the manner laid down under Section 16 of the Central Act of 1984”.

15.    It is clear from the aforementioned judgment that the Petitioner Institute was restrained by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana from conducting  any  examination,  which direction was totally ignored by the Petitioner Institute who went ahead and conducted the Examination and  also  circulated the misleading advertisement attracting the  innocent youth to the aforestated courses.

16.    Keeping in view the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also of this Commission in Dhirendra Kumar (Dead) & Ors. Vs. M.R.Sarangapani & Ors., I (2015) CPJ 550 (NC) (Original Petition No. 255 of 2001—Decided on 14.1.2014)  and for all the aforementioned reasons,  this  Revision  Petition is dismissed accordingly.  No order as to costs.