Coaching Institutes Should Not Have Right To Retain Fees Of Students Who Leave Course Midway: Kerala Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a refund of fees to a student who had enrolled in courses offered by VLCC Institute, Kochi, but subsequently got cancelled due to failure on the part of the institute to offer timely classes, even through online mode. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, and...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a refund of fees to a student who had enrolled in courses offered by VLCC Institute, Kochi, but subsequently got cancelled due to failure on the part of the institute to offer timely classes, even through online mode.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N., underscored the importance of protecting consumers in the education sector, by ensuring refund of fees to students who choose to leave a course midway.
"ln the field of education, while many coaching institutions offer valuable services to prepare students for higher education, there unfortunately exists a presence of unscrupulous coaching institutions engaging in unethical practices. exploiting students and their families. These institutions should not have the right to retain the fees of students who choose to leave a course midway due to dissatisfaction with the services provided. It is essential to ensure fairness and prevent these institutions from imposing unfair terms and conditions. Protecting consumers, particularly in the education sector is of utmost importance to guarantee that students and parents are treated with the respect and honesty they deserve," the Bench observed.
The complainant had enrolled in a diploma course offered by the opposite party institute. Although she initially attended physical classes, she later attended classes online following her being tested positive for COVID-19. The complainant however asserted that the institute subsequently stopped offering the course altogether.
The complainant claimed that she was later persuaded by the Regional Head of the Institute to join two advanced courses, for which the former again paid the requisite fees. However, she claims that no classes were offered by the institute for either course.
When the complainant sought a refund from the institution, the latter offered alternatives such as purchasing VLCC products of equivalent value to the fees paid or adjusting the course fees against the enrollment of a relative or sibling.
It is on being aggrieved by the same and alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties that the present complaint was filed seeking a refund of the course fee amount, along with compensation for the mental hardship and distress faced by the complainant.
The Commission found that the complainant had enrolled in the courses with a legitimate expectation of receiving quality coaching, but the Institution failed to deliver its promise. It noted that this amounted to a deficiency in service.
"The opposite parties' suggestion to adjust the course fees against the enrolment of a relative or sibling is not only unfair but also contrary to consumer protection principles. Fees paid by the complainant should not be rendered non-refundable in such a manner. Such practices are deemed unconscionable and voidable, as highlighted by legal precedents," the Commission observed.
It thus ordered the Opposite Party institution to refund the course fees paid by the complainant, and to pay an additional amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the mental agony, hardships and inconvenience caused to the complainant, as well as towards the cost of proceedings.
The complainant was represented by Advocate U. Jayakrishnan. Advocate Muhammed Musthafa appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties
Case Title: Zeba Salim v. M/S VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 365/ 2022