HCMI EDUCATION Vs. NARENDRA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 01.03.2012 in Appeal No. 59/2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter "State Commission")

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (OP1) made assessment of Complainant/respondent's educational qualification for eligibility to get admission for MBBS Course, in Opposite Party No.2 College. Accordingly, on 25.08.2007 complainant paid Rs.5,000/- charges to OP-1 towards processing fees. Subsequently, the OP 2 after considering his educational qualifications, -certificates and evaluation thereof, issued a letter (C-14) dated 31.08.2007 to the Complainant. OP-2 asked him to submit the original certificates, along with a sum of US$ 3500, in favour of Opposite Party No.1 towards tuition fee, and US$7500 towards foreign student fee., as per Annexure C-15. In pursuance of the letter C-14, deposited the aforesaid amount, with Opposite Party No.1, against two receipts issued as Annexure C-16 and C-17, besides US$1000, as registration fee, vide receipt Annexure C-18. It was stated that, on the basis letter Annexure C-14, the Opposite Parties, arranged valid visa of Philippines for the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant enrolled himself in MBBS, with Opposite Party No.2 College and successfully completed the 1st semester. While the complainant was appearing, in the last examination of the 2nd Semester i.e. Biochemistry, held on 24.10.2008, Resolution No. 491 of 2008 Annexure C-23 was circulated to the students, issued by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Republic of Philippines, in which, it was stated that the OPs had offered MBBS Program, inspite of absence of CHED memorandum order prescribing curriculum, of such program. Thereafter, the Complainant raised protest with the OPs, on various grounds but the OPs gave only false assurances and did nothing in the matter. The Commission of Higher Education vide the above resolution, resolved the abolition of MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) Program, from the year 2008-2009. It was stated that the OPs, thus, misled the Complainant, as initially, when he visited the office of OP No.1, it had supplied the brochure to him, clearly mentioning the offer of MBBS program in India, to the eligible students. It was further stated that, as per Resolution No.491 of 2008, the Complainant could not do 2nd year MBBS without first doing B.Sc. (Biology) Program (not less than 3 semesters and one summer). It was further stated that B.Sc (Biology) program was neither a part of MBBS curriculum, nor of the contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that a protest was raised by the Complainant, in respect of the aforesaid circular, on the ground, that he had to spend additional amount of Rs.3 lakhs for doing 1 1/2 -2 years of his bright career; that after successfully doing B.Sc.(Biology) degree, he will have to appear in a validating examination, for becoming eligible to sit in the 2nd year MBBS Program; that he was being downgraded to a lower course i.e. from professional to academic, and that he was kept in dark in all aspects. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the OPs, amounted to unfair trade practice, which represented falsely to the Complainant about their services. It was further stated that even the OPs, were deficient, in rendering service, as there was clear cut shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance. The OPs were, many a time, asked to refund the fee, paid by the Complainant, but OPs turned deaf ear to it. Therefore, complainant filed a complaint No. 336/2010 on 20/5/2010 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (in short District Forum) for total claim of Rs.16,94,700/ under various heads. The Petitioner / OP-1 in its version submitted that the role of OP-1 which is Global Health Care Management Institution was only that of facilitator which helped students to access quality medical education by providing information, guidance and counseling regarding various courses in Philippines. Therefore, the role of the Petitioner was over after Complainant's admission in the college. The complainant was admitted in the College and successfully completed 1st semester in April 2008. He appeared in 2nd semester exams in October 2008. OP 1 also contented that at the time of admission the college was recognized by CHED. In the meantime, numerous medical colleges mushroomed in Philippines which were not following the prescribed course by CHED. Being unable to weed out such medical schools, vide resolution no. 491 of 2008 CHED scrapped the MBBS course in entire Philippines. Realizing the predicament faced by the students, vide letter dated 20.10.2008, CHED issued instructions for strict compliance for affected students. The instructions sought to accommodate all such students in the changed course structure. Therefore, Complainant returned India instead of continuing the education, and filed a consumer complaint on the ground of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The OP-1 also stated that main contention of the Complainant was that since the college was not following the prescribed course structure, CHED took back its recognition; due to which he had to pursue arts now.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under: - The OPs are, jointly & Severally, directed to refund the amount paid to them by the Complainant (US$ 3500 as Tuition Fee, US$ 7500 towards Foreign Student Fee and US$1000 as Registration Fee paid vide Annexure C-16 to C-18) i.e. net 12000 (Twelve Thousand) U.S. Dollars besides paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation for the physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him at their hands. They are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.