This is a discussion on Ramiaha Medical College within the Hospital forums, part of the Medical category; ORDER 1 (a): This Complaint is filed on 13.1.2009. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ...
1 (a): This Complaint is filed on 13.1.2009. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the year 2004 towards Post Graduate Admission of Dr.Sharouk.F. Anklesaria the son of the Complainant to the Opposite Party-College. It was so paid in response to the advertisement caused by the Opposite Party-College. Dr.Sharouk was the only one student amongst many others who had so applied for Post Graduation in the subject of “Anatomy”. He was granted a seat as per Admission Ticket No.M4615 PGET 2004. His Rank is, 165. The seat was so allotted provisionally subject to the final approval by all the concerned Authorities connected with Medical Education.
There were several litigations at that time regarding admission to Post Graduate Courses. There was no confirmation by the Opposite Party-College thereafter. Dr.Sharouk had also applied for other Universities located abroad and he got a confirmed admission abroad. Then, he moved the Opposite Party-College seeking a referral letter to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore for the return of his original Certificates.
Accordingly, as per the reference of the Opposite Party-College, the said University returned the original Certificates to Dr.Sharouk. However, the admission fee so collected by the Opposite Party-College was not refunded inspite of repeated requests. Hence, this Complaint is filed to direct the Opposite Party-College to refund the said amount. (b) Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has produced some documents and they are Xerox copies.
2. The Opposite Party-College have chosen to produce their Version of the case on 21.2.2009. In brief, it is as hereunder: Dr.Sharouk. F. Anklesaria had selected a Post Graduate Seat in M.S. Anatomy on his own wish. He was admitted to that Course as per the Entrance Examination conducted by COMEDK-PGET 2004 for the year 2004-05. That Course commenced in the month of May 2004. Almost all other students have attended the classes regularly and completed their Course in the year 2007. Dr.Sharouk did not choose to prosecute his studies in the Opposite Party-College.
On the other hand, he sought return of the original Certificates. Accordingly, as per the reference made by the Opposite Party-College at the request of Dr.Sharouk, the concerned University had returned those original Certificates to Dr.Sharouk. While moving for the return of those original Certificates, Dr.Sharouk had told that he would rejoin that Course in the early part of 2005. However, he did not turn-up. On account of the commissions and omissions of Dr.Sharouk, the Opposite Party-College could not take any other student in the place of Dr.Sharouk not only for the first year, but also for the subsequent 2 years. On account of the same, the Opposite Party-College had to incur loss. Now after lapse of several years, a move is made seeking refund of the amount so paid for the admission of Dr.Sharouk to the Opposite Party-College. Infact, the admission of Dr.Sharouk to the Opposite Party-College was in order.
There can be no justification in the above situation in seeking refund of that amount. It is unjust to contend that the Opposite Party-College had to bear the loss incurred on account of the discontinuation of the Course by Dr.Sharouk himself and to forego the fee for the remaining 2 years. In the circumstances, this Complaint has remained devoid of merits. Accordingly, this Complaint has to be dismissed.
3. By way of evidence, one Furdoon Sorabji Anklesaria, aged about 74 years, R/at No.36, Lavelle Road, Bangalore has sworn to an affidavit claiming himself as the PA Holder of the H.F.Anklesaria which affidavit is made available on 5.3.2009 along with copies of some documents. For the Opposite Party-College, their Principal namely Dr.S.Kumar has sworn to an affidavit which is made available in evidence on 30.3.2009 along with copies of some documents. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.
4. The following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether this Complaint is hit by the law of limitation? If so, whether the Complainant had explained the delay in filing this Complaint?
(ii) Whether the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-College is established? (iii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?
(iv) What Order?
5. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) This Complaint is hit by the law of limitation.
iv) As shown in the operative portion of the Order here below.
6. We shall substantiate our findings on the following:
R E A S O N S
POINT NO.1 (a): The documentary evidence made available by the parties in this case gains relevance here. Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has made available a copy of the letter dt.19.8.2004 addressed by Dr.Sharouk.F.Anklesaria the PG Student touching the Complaint to the Opposite Party-Principal. As per the letter, he had admitted that in the month of May 2004, he was granted admission to the PG Course in “Anatomy” on the basis of his rank in the COMEDK Examination held in February 2004. It is further recited in the said letter that he was granted admission for a short Course of study abroad which was scheduled to commence in the month of October 2004 and for that purpose, he required the original Certificates made available by him at the time of his admission to the Opposite Party-College and accordingly, he had requested the Opposite Party-College to refer his letter to the concerned University namely Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore.
It is further recited in the said letter by Dr.Sharouk.F.Anklesaria that he would rejoin that Anatomy Course in the early part of 2005. Admittedly, he did not keep-up his promise and he did not rejoin that Course in the Opposite Party-College. In the circumstances, if really he was entitled for the refund of the amount paid to the Opposite Party-College at the time of his admission to that PG Course in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, he would have sought refund of the same immediately without loss of further time. But, he did not do so. On the other hand, as revealed in the documentary evidence made available, after lapse of more than 2 years, such a demand is laid by his father H.F.Anklesaria in writing on 9.3.2007. A copy of that letter is made available by the Complainant himself. In that letter, he has chosen to contend that the admission of Dr.Sharouk to the Opposite Party-College was a provisional one which was subject to the confirmation by the concerned Authorities in the Medical Education and there was no letter of confirmation by the Opposite Party-College and in the circumstances, Dr.Sharouk had to take recourse to alternate admission elsewhere and therefore in the circumstances, the fee paid by the Dr.Sharouk in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- need be refunded.
(b) First of all, the above letter dt.9.3.2007 is rather contradictory to the letter addressed by Dr.Sharouk himself dt.19.8.2004 which we have referred to above. Dr.Sharouk never whispered anything by way of grievance whether his admission was provisional or final. Wherefore, there is every reason to infer that the father of Dr.Sharouk who is the Complainant herein must have thought of a means to get back the said amount by alleging something if possible.
If really on account of the subsequent development of Dr.Sharouk going abroad and doing some Course disabled him from prosecuting his studies in the Opposite Party-College, there could have been a cause of action for the Complainant to seek refund of the same. But, here it is not so. Dr.Sharouk has no grievance whatsoever regarding the non-refund of that amount. He is not the Complainant herein, nor he has produced any affidavit in this case in that regard. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the Complainant as the father of Dr.Sharouk was entitled for the said refund, he could have moved for refund at the earliest and could have approached this Forum within the period of 2 years either from the date of payment of that amount on 4.2.2004 or from the date when the Dr.Sharouk failed to keep-up his promise to rejoin the Opposite Party-College in the early part of 2005.
Having kept quiet for all these years i.e. for more than 2 years, now the Complainant has chosen to seek refund of the said amount.
(c) As per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a Complaint cannot be maintained under the said Act if it is not filed within a period of 2 years from the date when the cause of action arose for the Complaint arose and it can be admitted only when the delay in that regard is satisfactorily explained by the Complainant. In the matter in hand, there can be least doubt that the very Complaint is hit by the law of limitation since there was delay in filing this Complaint and since the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Complainant.
7. POINT NO.2 (a): Now coming to the aspect of refund of the amount, absolutely there is no documentary evidence to probabilise that the said amount is refundable under such and such situation. That apart, it is the very case of the Opposite Party-College that Dr.Sharouk was so admitted to that Course and the Course had commenced in May 2004 itself and that Dr.Sharouk had attended the Course and that subsequently, he sought for the return of the original Certificates or Testimonials made available by him on the eve of his admission with a promise that he would rejoin the Course in the early part of 2005. However, he did not keep-up his promise. In the mean time, as per the Complainant, that Dr.Sharouk had completed a Course abroad and never turned-up to the Opposite Party-College to further prosecute his studies either in the first academic year or subsequent academic years touching that Anatomy PG Course. It is significant to observe that Dr.Sharouk or for that matter the Complainant herein, never informed the Opposite Party-College that for such and such reason, he (Dr.Sharouk) could not prosecute his Course in the Opposite Party-College. On the other hand, the Complainant has chosen to contend that since there was no final admission by the Opposite Party-College to Dr.Sharouk for that Course, the refund has to be allowed.
Can this argument be accepted in the given situation? Certainly not.
(b) It is pertinent to note that it is not as if the Opposite Party-College refused Dr.Sharouk to prosecute his studies. It is not as if there was no infrastructure for the said Course in the Opposite Party-College. It is not as if the Opposite Party-College demanded more fees. On the other hand, it is Dr.Sharouk who failed to prosecute his Course in the Opposite Party-College.
His failure is voluntarily in nature. Therefore, for his commissions and omissions, can he find fault with the Opposite Party-College? Moreover, it is the very case of the Opposite Party-College that except the Complainant, all other students have attended the said Course and completed the Course in the year 2007 itself and the Complainant is the only person who remained absent. It is the further case of the Opposite Party-College that on account of the continuation of the name of the Complainant in the rolls, the Opposite Party-College had to loose the fee for the 2nd and 3rd year Course due to the absence of Dr.Sharouk prosecuting his studies in the Opposite Party-College. In the Course of argument, the Opposite Party-Principal very fairly submitted that incase the Complainant or his son had informed the Opposite Party-College at the earliest that they are not interested in prosecuting the Course atleast the Opposite Party-College could have done something and could have attempted to refund the amount and now on the other hand, a Claim is being made for refund after lapse of several years and therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever in granting the above relief.
(c) To grant a relief in favour of the Complainant in this case, first of all it has to be established by him that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-College which can come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the matter in hand, where is the deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-College?
(d) Nodoubt, the Complainant tried to impress upon this Forum that he came to know that as per the New Rules of the University, a student can opt for admission to another college and that in the circumstances, the fee paid by that student has to be refunded by the College Authorities and that the Opposite Party-College is also accordingly liable to refund. Ofcourse, a refund is permissible, but, it depends upon the context. In the matter in hand, under no situation, it can be opined that for non-confirmation of the admission, Dr.Sharouk had to leave the Opposite Party-College. That apart, according to the Opposite Party-College, the New Rules of the University regarding refund of fee applied to such candidates who cancel the seat allotted to them before the second round of the PGET counseling. In the matter in hand, such a situation has not arisen as revealed in the evidence. Wherefore, withholding that amount by the Opposite Party-College in the circumstances, according to us, cannot amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the aforesaid Act. This is more so for the reason that the Opposite Party-College had to forego the fees for the remaining 2 years and also to forego the balance fee for the first year and having suffered such a huge loss, would it be just and proper to hold that the amount so paid need be refunded? Certainly not. Wherefore, in any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party-College remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Complainant.
8. POINT NOs.3 & 4: In the light of our findings on Point No.1 and 2 supra, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief much less the reliefs sought in this Complaint.
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **