Educational Institutions Are Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, South-West Delhi Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) reiterated that educational institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. On this premise, the complaint, against Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (commonly known as IP University)...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) reiterated that educational institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. On this premise, the complaint, against Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (commonly known as IP University) for not initiating refund of counselling fee, was dismissed.
Brief Facts:
Shri Sudhir (“Complainant”), in pursuit of an MBA course, applied for the opening 2011 session with Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (“University”), a well-known educational institution. The university conducted a Common Entrance Test (CET) for the MBA course on 04/06/2011. The complainant participated and his result was placed at serial number 3995 in the merit list on 06/06/2011. The university then announced the first counselling on 03/07/2011 through its website, scheduled for 04/07/2011 and 05/07/2011. Due to residing in a rural area, the complainant couldn't attend this counselling. However, he participated in the second counselling on 11/09/2011 and paid Rs. 53,000/-. The University assured the complainant of providing specialization in Human Resources (HR) for the MBA course, leading the complainant to enroll based on this assurance.
However, shortly after admission, the university revoked its promise to offer the HR specialization. Feeling misled, the complainant decided to withdraw from the course, with the understanding that the full amount would be refunded within a month. Out of the total Rs. 53,000/-, the university returned Rs. 13,000/-, but the remaining Rs. 40,000/- was still outstanding and pending. In response, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 17/03/2012, seeking a refund of the remaining amount. However, the university did not respond to the legal notice or refund the outstanding amount. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”) alleging deficiency in service on part of the university.
The university asserted that the complaint lacks validity as the complainant doesn't fit the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as it doesn't cover educational services. Additionally, it highlighted that the complainant was well aware of the course's details and the associated degree when enrolling. The university stress that the admission fee, which the complainant paid, was explicitly declared as non-refundable in the institute's brochure.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission perused the documents and evidence on record presented by both the parties. The District Commission placed reliance on the case of Manu Solanki vs Vinayak Mission University, wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) held that institutions rendering education, even those providing vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of admission, pre-admission or post-admission, except coaching institutions, will not be covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
As a result, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
Case: Shri Sudhir vs Registrar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
Case Number: CASE NO. 238/2013
Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.
Click Here To Read/Download Order