1.         This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 14.08.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 98 of 2014.

2.         Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant (the ‘institute’) and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (the ‘complainant’). No one appears for the respondent no. 2 (the ‘university’). Perused the record. 

3.         The chronology in brief is that the complainant was pursuing his MBBS degree from the appellant institute. After completing the curriculum he was undertaking his compulsory rotating resident internship (CRRI). He wanted his resident internship to be transferred from the appellant institute to Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore. The institute refused the transfer on ground that the rules did not allow the same. The complainant approached Hon’ble High Court, which decided in his favour. In compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s Order dated 31.01.2013 the institute issued ‘no objection certificate’ dated 06.03.2013’ and ‘transfer certificate’ dated 04.02.2013 to enable the complainant to transfer his internship to CMC Vellore. The transfer of internship took place. In the ‘transfer certificate’ the institute evaluated his ‘conduct and character’ as ‘not satisfactory’. The complainant challenged this evaluation before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 14.08.2019 directed the institute to issue another ‘transfer certificate’ to the complainant stating therein that his ‘conduct and character’ was ‘satisfactory’ and to pay him compensation of Rs. 20 lakh along with Rs. 10 thousand as litigation expenses within one month of its Order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation.

4.         Learned senior counsel for the institute submits that though the rules did not allow transfer of resident internship but the same was allowed by the institute in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s Order(s). Hon’ble High Court had directed the institute to give its ‘no objection certificate’ and ‘transfer certificate’, which it dutifully did. In the ‘transfer certificate’ the ‘conduct and character’ of the student was assessed as ‘not satisfactory’ as the same was the fair opinion of the faculty.

Learned senior counsel also submits that assessment of the academic and overall performance including ‘conduct and character’ of a student by a medical institution imparting degree in medicine is beyond the scope of a consumer protection forum.

Learned senior counsel further submits that even otherwise institutions rendering education except coaching institutions are not covered under the provisions of the Act 1986. In this regard he places reliance on Order dated 11.10.2022 in R.P. No. 2006 of 2019 passed by a co-ordinate bench (bench no. 1) of this Commission and draws attention to para 51 thereof. The same is being reproduced below for reference:

51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activites, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Admittedly, the Petitioner Institute is rendering Education to all the persons, including the Complainant / Respondent, and is not running a Coaching Institute. Therefore, the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki (Supra), which I am bound to follow, is fully applicable and the Institute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is not rendering any services.

5.         Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the ‘conduct and character’ of the complainant was assessed as ‘not satisfactory’ only because he had approached Hon’ble High Court and obtained an Order in his favour. Submission is that it was an unfair assessment since the institute was biased because the complainant had gone to Hon’ble High Court.

Learned counsel however fairly agrees that as per the Order dated 11.10.2022 of a co-ordinate bench of this Commission institutions rendering education except coaching institutions are not covered under the provisions of the Act 1986.

6.         In rebuttal learned senior counsel submits that there is no evidence at all to show that the institute was biased just because the complainant had approached Hon’ble High Court. Seeking legal remedy was his lawful right and there can hardly be any reason for bias or any reason to take umbrage on that count. The State Commission appears to have passed its Order on surmises and conjunctures without a shred of evidence having basis in fact to show that the institute was biased. The ‘not satisfactory’ assessment was the fair unbiased opinion of the institute’s faculty taken in the normal course of its working.

7.         We find merit in the submissions of learned senior counsel that there is no evidence to support allegation of bias on the part of the institute in assessing the complainant’s ‘conduct and character’ as ‘not satisfactory’. We also find merit in learned senior counsel’s submission that assessment about the academic and overall performance including ‘conduct and character’ of a student in an academic institution which is granting degree in medicine and which is made by the faculty as part of its working in the ordinary course is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act 1986.

We may also remark that we do not at all agree with the State Commission’s observation in para 19 of its Order that ‘the opposite party has not only caused deficiency of service but also followed unfair trade practice against the complainant’. The evaluation or assessment of a student’s performance by the faculty of an academic institution imparting degree in medicine can by no stretch of imagination have similitude with a trader or service provider selling goods or providing services. ‘Deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ by a trader or service provider in respect of ‘goods’ or ‘services’ as are within the purview of the Act 1986 are not at all relevant or related or applicable to the evaluation or assessment of a student’s academic and overall performance including ‘conduct and character’.

8.         As such, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned Order dated 14.08.2019 of the State Commission.

9.         The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.