MINU NASRY Vs. T A PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions of importance and great significance under the Consumer Law arise in this case as under: (1) Whether expulsion of a student from the teaching / training institute would amount to deficiency in rendering service. (2) If answer to the question aforesaid is affirmative, as to whether expulsion of a student from teaching/training institute would be a negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation.

(2.) On merits, the complaint filed by Minu Nasry was dismissed by District Forum, Ferozepur on January 7, 1997 that she has challenged the aforesaid order in this appeal. She was 2nd year student of General Nursing in Francis Newton Hospital at her own expense. Her parents had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash as tuition fee and Rs.400/- per month to pay as hostel fee. The complainant was admitted to the Institution/hospital on August 30, 1991. Apart from the aforesaid expenditure, the complainant had to spend about Rs.20,000/- on her books and uniform etc. She was expelled from the Hospital by Smt. T. A. Paul, Nursing Superintendent and Dr. Richard David, Director of the Hospital on February 17, 1993. Both of them were impleaded as opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The parents of the complainant were asked to get the complainant migrated to some other institution. Since they did not agree, she was expelled from the Hospital. This action was challenged in the complaint filed before the District Forum, Ferozepur. The opposite parties submitted their version contesting the complaint, inter-alia, alleging that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was not maintainable. It was also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The allegations were vague and no relief could be granted. Admission of the complainant, in the school of nursing run by the management of Francis Newton Hospital, was admitted. It was stated that a sum of Rs.5,000/- only was charged towards tuition fee annually. Rs.400/- per month was charged as mess charges for the food served. The complainant was asked to migrate for valid reasons given in the letter dated February 12, 1993 (Annexure A ). The complainant was warned and asked to improve her conduct repeatedly. A letter in this respect was communicated to the complainant on February 2,1993 (Annexure B ). The complainant was not keeping desirable standard of general behaviour. Her ward work was below average. She was disobedient, discourteous and in disciplined. She could not be allowed in the educational institution of repute. The role of father of the complainant was also communicated as unbecoming and extremely discourteous. Since the management never wanted to spoil the career of the complainant, she was asked to get herself migrated. The matter of the expulsion was stated to be legal, valid and for reasons. The same was as per rules and by- laws of the institution. Both the parties produced their evidence and several documents. The District Forum held the order of expulsion having been passed for cogent reasons and the complaint was dismissed.

(3.) Since admission of the complainant in the school of nursing run by the opposite parties was for consideration paid, although there is dispute with respect to the actual amount of tuition fee charged, present is a case of hiring services of the opposite parties for consideration and with the expulsion of the complainant under order of the opposite parties, there is break or stoppage of rendering of such services which could be termed as deficiency in rendering service, if the action was without any rhyme or reason. Simple stoppage or break in the rendering of the services may not amount to deficiency in rendering services. Deficiency has been defined under Sec.2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under 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. " Viewing from the aforesaid definition, the facts of the present case are to be taken into consideration. Rendering of services by the teaching or training institute as is the opposite party hospital has to be subjected to certain norms on the part of the complainant. She has to adhere to the discipline of the institution and if complainant had failed to adhere to the same, action to expel her would be outside the scope of the deficiency as referred to above. After hearing Counsel for the complainant and going through the record, we confirm the finding of the District Forum on merits that the expulsion is for valid reasons and supported by rules and regulations of the institution. The FORA under the Act is not to sit as an Appellate Authority over the judgments of the opposite party in such like matters.