Coaching Institute Conducting Physical Classes Can't Force Online Classes On Students Without Consent: Delhi Consumer Commission Orders Refund

A Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Delhi has directed a medical coaching institution to refund the entire advance fees paid by a student, observing that it could not force a student to undertake online classes during Covid-19 pandemic, when the student had initially signed up for physical classes.

The Commission observed,

"It is undisputed facts between the parties that coaching to be imparted to the students admitted in the institute of the OP side was undoubtedly for the ‘physical classes’ and not through the online mode...The outbreak of pandemic covid-19 was unprecedented. To impact online coaching was unilateral decision of OP, no option/ consent was sought by OP from complainant. Thus, OP cannot forced online classes in place of physical classes, except consent of complainant."

The Complainant's case was that he paid the entire fee in advance (Rs. 1,16,820) to the Coaching Institution (OP) for availing seven months long coaching classes (physical classes) for the post-graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2021. However, due to Covid 19 Pandemic, the complainant requested the OP to refund the fee paid by him since he would not be able to attend the classes physically. Initially, though the OP agreed to refund the entire amount paid by him, later on, offered the complaint an alternative of opting for online classes. But after attending online classes for a few days because of poor connectivity of the internet in his home town, technical glitches and poor quality of teaching, the complainant informed the OP that he cannot attend the online classes and requested for a refund of the fee paid by him, but in vain. 

The Commission observed that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented and to implement online coaching classes was a unilateral decision of OP and the consent of the complainant was not sought. Therefore the Commission observed that the Coaching institution cannot force online classes in place of physical classes, without the consent of the complainant.

It noted that the complainant repeatedly took the stand about unfair trade practice on the part of the OP being in a dominant position over innocent students by charging a lump sum fee for the entire duration of the course and did not impart quality education. The Complainant relied upon the State Commission order in FIITJEE Ltd. v. Minathi Rath to substantiate his submissions. 

In the reply filed by the Senior Manager of the OP, he submitted that the consumer complaint is wholly misconceived and based on erroneous facts and submissions as the 'no refund policy' were duly explained to the complainant at the time of the admission.

The Commission observed that there is no reference to the 'no refund policy' in the emails sent to the complaint on behalf of OP while dealing with the refund request of the complaint.  

Furthermore, from the terms and conditions, it is evident that there is a clause about the claim of refund and it states that students who are found to be guilty of prohibited acts cannot claim a refund of the fee paid however, the Commission pointed out that the OP has not taken the stand of any such violations on the part of the complainant nor it was done so at any point of time as is reflected from the record by the complainant.

In nutshell, the terms and conditions under reference of the opposite side supports the claim of the complainant for the refund of fee, the Commission observed. 

The Commission further opined that the complainant fortified his case by placing reliance on the case of FIITJEE Ltd. v. Minathi Rath in which all the training imparting Institutes, educational centres preparing the students for the Entrance Examination or imparting any other kind of training including the computer training or any other kind of coaching, etc. are hereby directed not to charge the fee for the whole duration of the course in advance by way of lump sum payment. Further, it was also observed in this case that any violation of this order shall be visited with heavy punitive damages and a sentence of imprisonment or fine as provided by Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Therefore the commission allowed the complaint. 

Case Title: Snehpal Singh v. Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd 

Before: Mr Inder Jeet Singh, Mrs Shahina and Mr Vysa Muni Rai 

Click Here To Read/Download The Order