Haryana

Panchkula

CC/136/2017

TAMANNA WADHAWAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWAMI DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL COLLEGE &OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GAUTAM

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                            

                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	136 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	07.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	12.07.2017

                                                                                          

Tamanna Wadhawan D/o Surinder Wadhawan, R/o House No.305/1, New Sukhdev Nagar, Panipat (Haryana).

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Swami Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana-134009 through its President.

2.       Principal, Swami Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana-134009.

3.       The Director of Medical Education & Research, Bays Building 55-58, 2^nd Floor, Sector-2, Panchkula.

 4.      Pandit B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak through its Registrar.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Amardeep Sharma, Adv., for the complainant.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Today the case was fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint.
2. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that she had applied for BDS entrance exam for the Session, 2016 and was allotted a seat during first counseling held on 15.09.2016 conducted by OP No.4 for BDS Course against one of the seat in the 50% management quota. On 17.09.2016, the complainant deposited fee of Rs.2,00,000/- (tuition fee of Rs.1,60,00/- + Development Fund of Rs.40,000/-) vide DD No.112790 and 139343 of Rs.1,00,000/- each against receipt No.5634 & 5635 dated 17.09.2016. But thereafter, on 05.10.2016, the complainant requested the Op No.2 through an application for withdrawal of admission in BDS Course and also for refund of fee and to return the original documents as submitted at the time of counseling which was refused by the Op No.2 to give acknowledgment in lieu of receipt. Thereafter, the complainant sent another copy of the application through speed post vide receipt No.EH4772259382 dated 05.10.2016 and the complainant handed over a copy to Op No.4 by hand. On 12.10.2016, the complainant approached the Op No.2 who only handed over the original documents/testimonials and refused to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to her. The complainant sent a letter dated 1.10.2016 to Ops No.3 and 4 and a reminder also sent on 25.10.2016 for refund of deposited amount. In response to reminder, the complainant received a letter from Op No.4 on 27.10.2016 wherein she was advised to approach the Government for refund. On advice of OP No.4, the complainant sent a letter to Government for giving direction to OP No.1 to refund the fee but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 20.02.2017 to Ops and the college refused to refund the fee in their reply. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file.
4. However, education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. In this regard reliance can be placed on a case titled P.T.Koshy & Anr Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held:-

“that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2)CPC 696 SC wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

5. The above law is followed by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.360 of 2013 titled as Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others decided on 12.07.2013.
6. The main question for consideration is whether the complainant/student is a ‘consumer’ or not. The answer to this is in the negative.
7. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled as Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava dated 17.01.2014, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors, 2013 (10) SCC 136, holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a ‘consumer’.
8. In view of the above position of law, the complaint stands dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is liberty to approach civil court, as per law, for redressal of her grievance.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced

12.07.2016 JAGMOHAN SINGH   ANITA KAPOOR             DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                            MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT