IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 145/08 DATED 09-07-2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Shanmuka.N.S., S/o S.Shivananda, R/at Naralapura Village, nandhinathapura Post, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri.B.Paneesh Kumar, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Principal, Sree Nataraja School of Nursing, Hosamutt, Shankar Mutt Road, Mysore-570004.<br /> (By Sri.G.S.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.05.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.06.2008<br /> Date of order : 09.07.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 26 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has approached this Forum against the Opposite party is that in order to pursue his studies in nursing, he sought admission to Opposite party school of nursing in the month of July 2006. At that time, the Opposite party had assured him that medium of instructions will be both in Kannada and English and based on such assurance he got himself admitted to Diploma in General Nursing paid in all Rs.31,000/- to the Opposite party. After getting himself admitted to Opposite party on 14.09.2006 he attended 12 to 13 classes during which he experienced that classes were conducted only in English and the students were compelled to present seminars on each day topics in English only. Then he requested the concerned teachers, but all expressed their inability to teach the course in kannada. When he approached the Opposite party with this grievance, the Opposite party gave evasive reply, therefore finding no alternative he decided to leave the course and the institutions, at that point of time requesting the Opposite party to refund his entire fee. Thereafter, he also approached the Opposite party during April 2008, but the Opposite party did not refund the money, but only returned the T.C. and therefore contending that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in their service has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to refund his fee of Rs.31,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and also pay Rs.10,000/- as damages with cost.<br /> 2. The Opposite party entered appearance through his advocate and filed version admitting the admission of this complainant to nursing course in their school on receipt of fee, but stated that the complainant after 6 months after admission left the course himself on personal ground and further stated that a notification was also issued informing everybody that medium of instructions of nursing course was English only. He has further stated to have issued T.C. and the complainant made known that fee paid was not refundable and stating that the complainant himself has left the course and denying having caused any deficiency in his service has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and the Principal of Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced the prospectus of the Opposite party school and receipt for having paid the fee. The Opposite party has produced a notification which discloses the medium of instructions of the nursing course, also produced copy of the application given by the complainant and letter of the complainant which was given to the Opposite party while discontinuing the course due to his personal reasons and also attendance register extract. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite party had assured that medium of instructions of the D.G.N.M. course will be in both in Kannada and English, but started teaching course in English only and thereby has caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- There is no dispute between the parties of this complainant seeking admission to a nursing course in the Opposite party institution paying fee of Rs.31,000/- in all and admission given on 14.09.2006. According to the complainant he attended the nursing course classes for nearly 12 to 13 days, but thereafter after having come to know that the Opposite party did not give course also in Kannada as promised he decided to quit the course. But the Opposite party has vehemently denied the allegations of promising the complainant that the nursing course will also be taught in kannada in addition to English. The Opposite party has produced a notification in support of their contention that the D.G.N.M. course will be taught in English only. But, the counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was not aware of this notification. Whereas the counsel for the Opposite party submitted that the notification was affixed in the notice board of the school and there was no nursing course in their institution, which could be taught either in kannada or both in kannada and English. It is further seen from the attendance register extract produced by the Opposite party that the complainant is shown to had attended several classes during September 2006 and even on few days in other months as the month and year is not found in other extracts. Of course, the complainant himself has admitted to had attended 12 to 13 classes, but later on remained absent without assigning any reasons to the Opposite party. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant who abandants the course some where during 2006 gave a representation to Opposite party on 12.12.2006 stating that due to his personal reasons he is leaving the course and thereby requested for return of his T.C. and also refund of his money. The Opposite party by relying on this letter of the complainant contended that the complainant got admitted to the Opposite party institution knowing that the nursing course will be taught in English, but after attending several classes, he voluntarily left the course and taken back the T.C. and contended to have not caused any deficiency in their service. <br /> 7. The complainant who alleges that at the time of admission, the Opposite party had promised him of imparting course both in kannada and English has failed to substantiate the same. It is submitted in the course of argument that the nursing course are taught in English which is the medium of instructions and not in kannda. That doing so, it was for the complainant who before getting admitted to the school of Opposite party ascertain the medium of instructions through which the course will be done. The complainant it is found after getting admitted himself to the course after attending several classes had decided to abandon the course and took back the T.C. but when he demanded for refund of the fee was not met during December 2006, but has come up with this complaint now before this Forum. The counsel for the complainant in the course of arguments submitted that the Opposite party took the letter of the complainant dated 12.12.2006 forcibly. But we do not find a whisper in that regard either in the complaint or in the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant. When the Opposite party in his version has stated that complainant himself voluntarily left the course due to his personal reasons by giving this letter, when that being so if that letter was taken by the Opposite party from the complainant forcibly nothing prevented the complainant to say so either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence. Therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the complainant that this letter of the complainant was taken forcibly cannot be believed there is no basis or foundation for such. Therefore, on perusal of the entire materials before us, we are constrained to hold that the complainant left course on his own due to some personal inconvenience and not that the Opposite party did not give nursing education in Kannada. Even this grievance of the complainant that he had to leave the course because it was also not in taught in kannada cannot be accepted. Because the nursing course is one which deals with medical science where in such course we are told are taught in English only at present. The complainant having voluntarily got admitted to the course attended few classes and when abandended due to his personal inconvenience he cannot blame the Opposite party attributing deficiency to them.<br /> 8. The Opposite party with whom the complainant sought admission would be eligible to give admissions to a number of students for the year. Therefore was not eligible for take more candidates than the prescribed limit. That being so if any student or students leave the course in the middle for no fault of the Opposite party it would affect financially and academically. Therefore, the complainant having attended certain classes cannot on his own quit the course and demand for refund of money. As such we find no materials on record to prove the deficiency of the O.P. Thus, we find no merits in the complaint and answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order. <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th July 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br />