Student Forced To Pursue Medical Education 'Online', Chandigarh District Commission Holds Trinity School Of Medicine And Its Indian Agent Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant secured admission to Trinity School of Medicines in St. Vincent, Caribbean, West Indies (“Institution”), through the representation of Ram Kumar (“Agent”), who claimed responsibility for admissions of Indian students. Despite this, she was denied the opportunity to pursue her medical studies on campus. She argued that she was instead relegated to online classes without her consent which led to difficulties due to time zone disparities. The Complainant further contended that she was unfairly marked as failing in a course, purportedly to compel her to pay additional fees for a retake. Additionally, she claimed that the Institution abruptly ceased online classes for the second term without adequate explanation or provision of alternative educational arrangements. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) against the Institution and the Agent.

In response, the Agent argued that he merely served as an intermediary and should not be held liable for the university's actions. The institution argued the Complainant was duly informed of the admission terms and the financial obligations required to secure her seat. It contended that it refunded a portion of the fees upon the Complainant's termination from the program due to academic failure. It also referred to email communications between the Complainant and university officials regarding her academic performance and program deadlines as evidence of transparency and due process.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant was enrolled in online classes for the entirety of her course, a mode of instruction that wasn't disclosed or agreed upon at the time of admission. Despite the Complainant's objections and requests for physical classes, the Institution persisted in delivering the course solely through online means. It held that this unilateral decision to provide education in a manner contrary to what was initially promised to the Complainant constituted an unfair trade practice.

The District Commission noted that the Institution refunded a portion of the fees, but it failed to reimburse the remaining balance to the Complainant. Given that the promised services, namely physical mode coaching, were not provided as agreed upon at the time of admission, the District Commission held that the Institution was deemed ineligible to retain the outstanding amount.

Therefore, the District Commission held that the actions of the Institution and the Agent amounted to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission directed them to refund the remaining balance of Rs. 10,51,650/- to the Complainant, inclusive of interest at a rate of 9% per annum.

Case Title: Sehaj Kaur vs Trinity School of Medicine and Anr.

Case Number: 177 of 2023

Date of Decision: 09.05.2024

Click Here To Read Order