Originally Posted by
Tanu 
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION;HYDERABAD
C.D.No.18/2006
Between:
1.Mr. S.L.M. Ahmed, S/o.M.A.Wahab,
Aged 46 years, Occ:Business,
2. Ms.Afroze Ahmed, D/o.Mr.S.L.M.Ahmed,
Aged 19 years, Occ:Student,
(Both of them residents of 6-3-1238/B/6,
Asif Avenue, Raj Bavan Road,Hyderabad.)
And
1.Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy , M.D.,
President,
USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222,Fort Wayne,
IN 46804 , U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2.Dr. Mahesh Krishna,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Pathanjalipuri (PO), Thadagam Rao,
Managarai, Coimbatore-641 108
Ph.3090285, 3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib –Marg,
Kotta road , New Delhi
110002- rep. by its Secretary. …Opp.parties
( As per order dt. 3.5.2007 in CDIA.728/06
O.P.no.4 is impleaded)
C.D.No.19/2006
Between:
1. Suhasini Ganguly,
W/o.Devanand,
Aged 51 years, Occ:Govt. Service,
2. Deviana Sharon,D/o.S.Devanand
and Mrs. Suhasini Ganguly,
aged 20 years, Occ:Student, … Petitioners
(Both the petitioners are residents
of Premmier Court, Flat no.102, Golkonda
X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020.)
And
1. Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy, M.D.,
President, USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222, Fort Wayne,
IN 46804, U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2. Dr.Mahesh Krishna ,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Pathanjalipuri (PO), Thadagam Rao,
Managarai, Coimbatore-641 108,
Ph:3090285,3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib –Marg,
Kotta road , New Delhi
110002- rep. by its Secretary. …Opp.parties
( As per order dt. 3.5.2007 in CDIA.727/06
O.P.no.4 is impleaded)
C.D.No.13/2007
Between:
Miss K.Sri Divya Reddy,
D/o.Sri K.Balakrishna Reddy,
Aged 22 years, occ:Student,
R/o.H.No.18-76, Sita Hospital,
Jangareddygudem,
West Godavari District. … Petitioner
And
1. Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy, M.D.,
President,
USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222, Fort Wayne,
IN 46804, U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2. Dr.Mahesh Krishna ,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
1003/A, Trichy Road, Olympus
Ramanathapuram,Coimbatore-641 045,,
Ph:3090285,3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marq,
Kotta Road, New Delhi-110002,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fax:0091-11-23236604. … opp.parties
C.D.NO.14/2007
Between:
Sileveru Bhanu Siva Kumar,
S/o.S.Mallaiah,
Aged 20 years, Occ:Student,
R/o.D.No.13/52, Nandyal,
Kurnool Dist. Complainant
And
1. Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy, M.D.,
President,
USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222, Fort Wayne,
IN 46804, U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2. Dr.Mahesh Krishna ,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
1003/A, Trichy Road, Olympus
Ramanathapuram,Coimbatore-641 045,,
Ph:3090285,3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marq,
Kotta Road, New Delhi-110002,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fax:0091-11-23236604. … opp.parties
C.D.No.15/2007
Between:
Sileveru Chandramouli,
S/o.S.Mallaiah,
aged 21 years, Occ:Student,
R/o.D.No.13/52,
Nandyal , Kurnool Dist. …Complainant
And
1. Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy, M.D.,
President,
USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222, Fort Wayne,
IN 46804, U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2. Dr.Mahesh Krishna ,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
1003/A, Trichy Road, Olympus
Ramanathapuram,Coimbatore-641 045,,
Ph:3090285,3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy Road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marq,
Kotta Road, New Delhi-110002,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fax:0091-11-23236604. … opp.parties
C.D.No.16/2007
Between:
C.Dhananjay Yadav,
S/o.Mr.C.Laxmana Kumar Yadav,
H.No.10, Benne Complex,
Noonepalli, Nandyal,
Kurnool District (A.P.518502) … Complainant
And
1. Dr. Fauzia S.Alkhairy, M.D.,
President,
USAIM, 6302, Illinois Road,
Suite 222, Fort Wayne,
IN 46804, U.S.A.,
Ph:1-260-740-2211.
2. Dr.Mahesh Krishna ,
Principal,
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Pathanjalipuri (PO), Thadagam Rao,
Mangarai, Coimbatore-641 108
Ph.3090285, 3090216.
3. Aashirwad Health & Education Trust,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.P.R.Krishna Kumar,
1003A, Trichy Road, Olympus,
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045,
Ph.5598821.
4. Medical Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marq,
Kotta Road, New Delhi-110002,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fax:0091-11-23236604. … opp.parties
Counsel for the complainants
in all the C.Ds. : M/s.P.Srinivas Reddy.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s. S.Niranjan Reddy-OP4
M/s.K.S.Murthy –O.P.No.3
CORAM: SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order(Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Since all these CDs deal with common facts and filed against common opposite parties they are being disposed of by this common order.
C.D.No.18:
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant’s daughter attracted by an advertisement issued by the opposite parties in the local news papers in Hyderabad offering admission to medical degree course at Coimbatore sub campus USAIM , which is run by the Ashirwad Health & Education Trust, joined the said degree course by paying an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- towards various fees and hostel charges. The complainant submits that his daughter also incurred expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- for purchase of books which are not relevant for medical education in India and also expenses of Rs.2 lakhs for traveling. Opposite parties 2 and 3 run “Aashirwad Health & Education Trust” and the complainant submits that he was misled to believe that the institution is having recognition by WHO, ECFMG & GMC . This is a MD degree programme beginning in September,2004 and the complainant submits that on 20.4.2005 he received a letter from opposite party no.2, Principal informing him that opposite party no.1 was visiting Coimbatore Sub-Campus for 3 days and requested the parents to attend the meeting on 23rd and 24th of May 2005 . At that meeting several issues were discussed and they were informed that Aashirwad Health & Education Trust has taken over the responsibility of International Study Center of USAIM at Coimbatore sub-campus w.e.f. May 2005 . Thereafter the complainant submits that he was pressured by opposite parties to pay Rs.4,40,000/- towards the course fee for the 2nd academic year and he addressed a letter on 17.11.2005 to opposite party no.1 seeking clarification and opposite party no.1 did not reply but opposite party no.3 replied by E-mail and the complainant submits that by letter dt.28.7.2000 WHO informed that USAIM was not listed in the W.H.O. Directoryand G.M.C. , England , by a letter dt.28.11.2001 addressed opposite party no.1 stated that G.M.C. was not aware of USAIM. The opposite parties also do not have recognition from ECFMG as claimed by them.
USAIM through its brochure claimed that the institution was recognised by W.H.O and G.M.C. and misled the parents in admitting their children to the said course and sub-campus at Coimbatore does not have any permission from Government of India nor Government of Tamilnadu , nor other statutory authorities such as the Medical Council of India and the Department of Medical Education, Government of Tamilnadu. As per the Medical Council of India Act,1956 no institution can start/offer medical education without the approval or permission from the Medical Council of India. The opposite party no.1 through various E-mails had stated that they have recognition from various international and national statutory authorities. The complainant submits that in the absence of necessary permission from Medical Council of India that the degree issued by this institution is not recognized by the Government of India nor by any statutory authority in India more specifically the Medical Council of India and therefore got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.30,05,000/-. The break up of which is as follows:
1.Towards the actual expenses incurred
by the petitioners Rs.6,90,000/-
2.Towards interest @ 24% p.a. thereon Rs.2,80,000/-
3. Towards loss of two precious academic
years for the 2nd petitioner Rs.10,00,000/-
4.Towards the mental agony and suffering
of the complainant and her family Rs.10,00,000/-
5. Towards the other expenses including
correspondence and E-Mails etc. Rs. 25,000/-
6. Towards professional fee and other
expenses for seeking advice. 10,000/-
___________ 30,05,000/-
The opposite parties issued a reply notice dt.18.1.2006 that they have never stated that their course has permission from Medical Council of India therefore they did not mislead the students. The complainants submit that the action of the opposite parties in conducting this medical course and running this medical college without any permission from Medical Council of India amounts to deficiency in service for which act she seek direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.30,05,000/- as prayed for together with costs and other reliefs.
The opposite party no.4 i.e. medical Council of India has been impleaded vide I.A.No.728/06 .
Opposite party no.1 did not file any counter.
Opp.party no.2 filed counter stating that the complainant had contacted the erstwhile International Health & Education Trust for admission to his daughter in the M.D. degree to be awarded by the University of Seychelles . International study centre located at Coimbatore offers this course of the University of Seychelles and opposite party no.2 denies that they made the complainant to believe that the course offered by them is per-se recognized in India. They contend that the students would be imparted only theory classes in India and if anyone wants to have clinical training it has to be done overseas. They never claimed that they were violated to medical Council of India and they made it clear that there would be a screening test conducted by National Board of Examination after completion of the course and even the prospectus issued to the complainant contained the same. They deny that an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid and submit that Rs.3,40,000/- was paid. They deny that University of Seychelles is not listed in World Health Organisation and submit that it is recognised by WHO and deny that GMC, England has not recognized the course offered by University of Seychelles American Institute of Medicine. The University of Seychelles is notified and recognised by WHO, ECFMG and GMC. On 28.4.2005 a letter was sent to the parents to meet the Dean and discuss the curriculum with them and made it clear that the programme was not under the purview of Medical Council of India. They deny that no study material was supplied and also deny sending E-Mails to the complainant .
Opposite party no.2 submits as follows:
a.The government of Schyelles has permitted the present course and no rule debars sub campuses at Coimbatore
b.WHO had made clear that USAIM was included in the supplementary electronic edition which is available on WHO Website even date
c. ECFMG vide its letter dt. 7.6.2002 stated that it would accept the application from the students and graduates of USAIM for the USMLE.
d. Since the entire course and curriculum are under the control of University of Seychelles, the International Study Centre did not opt for recognition from the Medical Council of India nd the Courts have declared that there is in no need to opt for any recognition from Medical Council of India to offer the non clinical course provided by a foreign University.
e. The complainant is in full knowledge of these issues.
f. The complainant failed in three papers out of four papers of the 1st semester examination held during August,2005 even in the repeated attempt in September 2005 the student was not successful in two of the three subjects she appeared for and therefore she could not move to the next semester.
The opposite party contends that they never claimed that their courses were recognized by MCI and submitted that MCI will be screening persons by conducting screening test for all those who have taken training in foreign universities and in one of the parents meeting held by the Parents Association they made a request to the college to make representation to the MCI. The opposite party no.1 contends that they never made any mis representation and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
Counter and evidence affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 is adopted by the opposite party no.3 vide memo.
Opposite party no.4 filed counter and chief evidence affidavit stating that in the year 2000 the MCI under Section 33 of the Act has framed Postgraduate Medical Education regulations, 2000 . The said regulations of 2000 , inter-alia , provided for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical courses, duration of the course subjects to be taught , mode of conduct of examinations etc. The proposed diploma in medicine and Rural Health Care is not in conformity with the nomenclature in terms of the provisions of the regulations and cannot be permitted to be conducted by the State Govt. (In addition to what is stated regulations made there under , inter-alia, provide the manner in which any medical college can be established or a new course of study or training can be introduced or started in an existing medical college, it is submitted under the provisions of the Act , no new course can be started or introduced in a medical college without the prior permission of the Central Govt. upon the recommendation of the MCI . Further Section 11 of the Act provides for recognition of any medicine course. Unless a course is recognized by MCI , anyone possessing such an unrecognized qualification is allowed to practice that specialty of medicine , in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The opposite no.4 contends that opposite parties no.1 to 3 have not taken any prior permission for starting of the course nor the said course has yet been recognized by MCI and as such continuation of such a course involving science of modern medicine, the said course is contrary to law. Opposite party no.4 states that under the Act, the Medical Council of India also determines intake capacity of medical institutions, PG and post doctoral super specialty courses being imparted in it. By applying objective standards and criteria laid down for the said purpose, admission in violation of the prescribed intake capacity are impermissible and adversely affect the standards of medical teaching of a particular medical institution. It is only the courses prescribed and recognized under the Act in the modern medicine such as MBBS, MD/MS etc. that can be undertaken by an authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made there under and that the courses in question in the present complaint are not permissible under the law, it is submitted that even otherwise the proposed medicine course leading to grant of MD degree is started at any of the medical institutions, the said course is bound to strain the existing infra structure of the medical institutions and would adversely affect the standards of the medical teaching at the said college.
Opposite party no.4 submits that the candidates who are seeking admission in a foreign medical institution but some agencies which are allegedly seeking to train students for medicine course, in places in India which are not the permitted and recognized medical colleges in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956, are luring students to take admission in medicine course affiliated to a foreign university , purporting to imparting training in India as well as in the foreign country. It is submitted that advertisements have been recently noticed in newspapers which suggest that the innocent students would be enrolled by such private agencies by promising foreign medical qualifications and when it may be possible that those innocent candidates may not even go to any foreign medical institution for proper teaching and training for becoming a doctor thereby playing fraud with the innocent and gullible students. The MCI has got published caution notice in leading newspapers all over the country brining to the notice of the public at large that no such institution has been approved by the Medical Council of India.
The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence and Exs.A1 to A21 are marked on her behalf. The opposite parties 2 & 3 filed affidavit by way of evidence and Exs.B1 toB25 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
The main point for consideration is whether the opposite parties committed any act of deficiency in service and if the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint?
The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that this C.D. is barred by territorial jurisdiction. We have perused the advertisement in Eenadu Telugu Daily in which it is stated that without any donation a student can do a medical course recognized by the University of Seychelles in Coimbatore and sought for Rs.500/- to be sent through DD and for cost of the application. Ex.A20 dt. 29.6.2005 authorised letter issued by Asheervad Health and Education Trust i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 authorising Mr.Venkat Barla residing at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad to facilitate the admission of students from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appointing of this agent has not been disputed by opposite parties 2 and 3 . In the light of the agent operating in Hyderabad on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 to facilitate admissions from the State of Andhra Pradesh, the contention of opposite parties 2 and 3 that this complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable.
Now we address ourselves to the question of deficiency in service, if any, committed by opposite parties 2 and 3 . The facts not in dispute are that the complainant’s daughter joined M.D. course floated by opposite parties 1 to 3 and paid an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- on 20.8.2004 towards the first year fees. It is the case of the complainant that they also spent Rs.1 lakhs towards hostel fee , Rs.50,000/- towards books and Rs.2 lakhs towards traveling expenses between Hyderabad and Coimbatore. Ex. A3 is the letter dt. 26.2.2005 signed by the parents committee seeking clarification whether USAIM has legal sanctity to operate Sub-Campus in India and if it had degree to permit the Sub-Campus as education in India is a State subject. Ex.A5 is the minutes of the meeting held on 24.5.2005 wherein it is stated in point no.4 that opposite party no.1 has confirmed that full fledged medical college will run with all the necessary infrastructure. The afore mentioned exhibits clearly show that there was interaction between the parents and the Principal with respect to the facilities and infrastructure provided by the opposite parties 2 and 3.
The main contention of the complainant is that the said Sub Campus at Coimbatore is not recognized by the Medical Council of India and also is not listed in WHO and that they were not aware that they cannot do clinical courses in India. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that till date no hospital has been started and not a single student was conferred a degree and that in C.D.No.18/2006 and 19/2006 students paid one year fee and whereas in C.D.Nos.13/2007,14/2007, 15/2007 and 16/2007 students paid the second year fees also. He contended that the students suffered because of lack of proper recognition from M.C.I. and could not do their clinical practice in India and therefore compensation they sought for Rs.30,05,000/- is justified. He drew our attention to Ex.A7 which is a letter dt. 17.11.2005 addressed to opposite parties in which he sought for several clarifications with respect to management, infrastructure and also the payment of second year fees. Ex.A9 is the letter dt. 21.11.2005 addressed by the complainant to the Dean stating that his daughter secured 66-Gross Anatomy, 62-Histology,71-Embryology, 74-Medical Terminology and that she has cleared the exams conducted on 12th and 13th September,2005 . Ex.A13 is letter dt. 10.12.2005 and is the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1,2&3 enquiring the legality of medical course started by them. Ex.A14 is the reminder dt.4.1.2006 . Ex.A16 is the letter addressed on 12.1.2006 by the opposite parties to the parent that they have not paid the second year fees and Ex.A15 is the reply given on 18.1.2006 by the opposite parties stating that they have never mis-represented to the students about their recognition and that the entire course and curriculum is under the direct and constant control of the University of Seychelles. Ex.A19 is the hall ticket issued by University of Seychelles .
As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party drew our attention to page 2 book of Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences and Research :
“We are affiliated to the American institute of Medicine University of Scychelles, which is recognized by WHO, ECFMG, GMC and other councils and our students are eligible to practice in India as per Medical Council of India regulations after clearing the screening test conducted by the MCI that is conducted for graduates with foreign medical degrees (as per screening test regulations of 2002)”
Ex.B3 is a letter issued by GMC dt. 28.11.2001 to opposite party no.1 stating that following the acceptance by WHO of their medical school the GMC will also recognise their medical degrees. Ex.B4 is a letter dt. 28.7.2003 issued by University of Scychelles , American institute of medicine that the degree conferred to the Sub Campus of University of Scychelles will be that of USAIM . The learned counsel for the opposite party also drew our attention to the brochure i.e. Ex.B7 in which it is stated as follows.
Students who are from India require to take an eligibility certificate from the Medical Council of India. This is required by the Medical Council of India for any student who is wishing to study in a foreign medical institution. After the completion of the course the student are required to write the screening test conducted by the Medical Council of India( as per screening test regulations 2002)
He contended that as per letter dt.28.7.2000 Ex.B1 from WHO and letter dt. 7.6.2002 Ex.B2 from ECFMG and letter dt. 28.11.2001 Ex.B3 from GMC and ratification by University of Scychelles vide letter dt. 28.6.2003 Ex.B4 it is clear that the promises made by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in their brochure were true and correct and there was no intention by opposite parties 1 to 3 to mislead the students in any manner.
While we find force in the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 that they do have recognition from ECFMG, GMC, WHO and are authorized by University of Scychelles to conduct the course at Coimbatore , we are of the considered view that opposite parties 1 to 3 did not adhere to the permission of MCI Act which is a statutory authority and which by virtue of section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 has been empowered with the prior approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for the conducting of the medical courses. Opposite party no.4 i.e. Medical Council of India was impleaded vide I.A.No.728/2006. The learned counsel for the opposite partyno.4 has filed a copy of India Medical Council Act, 1956 and drew our attention to Clause 10(A)PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGE,NEW COLLEGE OF STUDY ETC. in which it is stated as follows:
1.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law the time being in force:-
a. no person shall establish a medical college
or
b. no medical college shall
i).open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or
ii). increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) , except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
The learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 also filed cumulative table with grades and marks obtained by them during their course of study in opposite parties 2 and 3 college. In the instant case the marks obtained by the students are not of any consequence since the main point for consideration is whether the very starting of this college is as per the provisions of law laid down by the MCI Act,1956.
It is pertinent to note that the Medical Council of India filed chief evidence affidavit stating that it is only the courses prescribed and recognized under the Act that can be undertaken by an authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the provisions of the Act did not permit the conduct of any such course and infact the Act prohibits any such medicine course which is not recognized by Indian Medical Act,1956. Unless the course is recognized by MCI, any one possessing an unrecognized qualification cannot be allowed to practice and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 further contended that MCI even got public caution notice in leading newspapers bringing to the notice of the public that no such institution has been approved by the Medical council of India . In view of this Act we are of the considered view that the contention of the leanrned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 that they have stated in their brochure that clinical courses will be done overseas , is unsustainable.
Keeping in view the afore mentioned documents and arguments put forth by all the parties and also the rules prescribed under the Medical Council of India Act,1956, we are of the considered opinion that luring students to take admission in medicine courses affiliated to foreign university purporting to impart training in India as well as in foreign countries , without the permission of MCI amounts to deficiency in service for which act opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the fees paid by the students with interest and compensation. We are of the view that for the mental agony suffered by the students on account of loss of academic year & future prospects, a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs would meet the ends of justice and hence we direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation to each of the student. We also award costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid for all the complainants put together. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed without costs.
C.D.No.18/2006:In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,40,000/- as per Ex.B3 filed by the opposite parties with their affidavit evidence , to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Time for compliance 4 weeks.
C.D.No.19/2006:In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,40,000/- vide Ex.B3 filed by the opp.parties along with their evidence affidavit, to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Time for compliance 4 weeks. Complaint against 4th opposite party is dismissed.
C.D.No.13/2007: In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,72,000/- as calculated from Exs.A2 to A12 to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together compensation of Rs.2 lakh. Time for compliance 4 weeks. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed without costs.
C.D.No.14/2007: In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,32,000/- as admitted by the opposite parties in their page no.2 of counter affidavit , to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Time for compliance 4 weeks. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed without costs.
C.D.No.15/2007: In the result complaint is allowed in part directing opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,32,000/- as admitted by the opposite parties in page 2 of their evidence affidavit , to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Time for compliance 4 weeks. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed without costs.
C.D.No.16/2007: In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,91,752/- as calculated from Exs.A1 to A5, to the complainant
together with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Time for compliance 4 weeks. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed without costs.
LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER(SA)
Dt .8.4.2009
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainants : nil For the opp.parties : nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants in C.D.No.18/2006:
Ex.A1: Advertisement in Enadu 18.7.2004
Ex.A2: Intimation letter dt. 3.9.2004 from Alliance International
Academy of Health Sciences and Research to the Complt.
Ex.A3: Lr.dt.26.2.2005 from Parents Committee to opp.parties
Ex.A4: Lr.dt.28.4.05 from Principal, Alliance International Academy of
Health Sciences & Research, Coimbatore to the Complt.
Ex.A5: Minutes of meeting held on 24.5.2005
Ex.A6: Lr.dt.14.11.20005 from the University of Seychelles.
to the parent
Ex.A7: Lr. Dt. 17.11.2005 from complainant to the opp.parties
Ex.A8: Lr. Dt.18.11.2005 from Rana Sinde , Deen , to the complt.
Ex.A9: Lr.dt.21.11.2005 from compt. To Dr. Rana M.Shinde
Ex.A10:Lr. Dt. 21.11.2005 from Prof. Rana Shinde to complt.
Ex.A11:Lr. Dt. 23.11.2005 from Complt. to Dr.Rana M.Shinde, Dean.
Ex.A12:Lr.dt. 30.11.2005 from complt to the opp.party no.1.
Ex.A13 : Legal notice dt.10.12.2005 issued by the complt to the O.Ps.
Ex.A14: Reminder dt.4.1.2006 issued by the complt to the opp.parties
Ex.A15: Reply legal notice 18.1.2006 issued by opp.parties
Ex.A16: Lr. Dt. 12.1.2006 from O.P.No.3 to the parent
Ex.A17: Charter of the University of Seychelles American Institute of
Medicine dt. 23.6.2000 issued by President of Republic of
Seychelles.
Ex.A18: Lr. Dt. 7.6.2002from Sr.Credentials Research Analyst, Medial
Education Credential Department to the University of Seychelles.
Ex.A19: Hall ticket issued to the 2nd complt.
Ex.A20: Authorisation lr. Dt.29.6.2005 issued by the opp.party no.3
Ex.A21 : Advertisement issued in Times of India
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants in C.D.No.19/2006:
Ex.A1 : Advertisement in Enadu News paper issued by opp.parties
Ex.A2 : Lr. Dt. 19.8.2004 to the International and Educational Trust.
Ex.A3:Admission lr. for undergraduate course from O.P.1 to complt no.2
Ex.A4: Certificate issued by alliance Internatinal Academy of Health
Sciences and Research.
Ex.A5: Receipt dt. 15.11.2005 for Rs.2,50,000/-
Ex.A6: Letter dt. 14.11.2005 from University of Seychelles to the parent.
Ex.A7: Certificate issued by opp.party no.2
Ex.A8: Letter of authorization issued by University of Seychelles.
Ex.A9: Lr. Dt. 26.5.2006 issued by the opp.party no.2 to the complt.
Ex.A10: Minutes of Meeting dt. 26.2.2005.
Ex.A11 & Ex.A12: Lr. Dt. 26.2.2005 issued by Parents committee to the
Ops.
Ex.A13 Charter of the University of Seychelles American Institute of
Medicine dt. 22.6.2000 issued by President of Republic of
Seychelles.
Ex.A14: Lr.dt.28.4.05 from OP.no.1 to complainants.
Ex.A15 : Lr.dt.18.4.2005 issued by the opp.paprty to the complts.
Ex.A16 : Minutes of meeting held on 24.5.2005
Ex.A17 : Legal notice dt.2.2.2006 issued by the complt to the opp.parties
Ex.A18: Reply notice dt. 22.2.2006 issued by O.Ps.
Ex.A19: Advertisement issued in TIMES OF INDIA.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant in C.C.no.13/2007 Ex.A1 : Lr. Dt. September 2004 from O.P.no.1 to complt.
Ex.A2 to A7 : Receipts issued by Alliance Group of Institutions.
Ex.A8 & A9: Cheques
Ex.A10 to a12 : Receipts
Ex.A13 : Lr. Dt. 14.10.2005 from opp.party no.1 to the parent
Ex.A14: Certificate issued by O.P.no.3
Ex.A15 : Letter of authorization issued by O.P.No.1
Ex.A16: Certificate dt26.10.05 issued by O.P.no.3
Ex.A17: Lr dt. 8.11.2006 from complt to opp.party no.1
Ex.A18: lr. Dt. 8.11.06 from the parents of complt to O.P.
Ex.A19: receipt issued Professional Couriers
Ex.A20: advertisement issued by the O.P.No.4 in Hindu news paper.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant in C.C.No.14/2007:
Ex.A1: Admission letter for Undergraduate course dt. September 2004 issued
by the issued by the University of Seychelles to the complt.
Ex.A2: Certificate issued by Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences
Research
Ex.A3: Marks list issued by O.P.no.1 in favour of the complainant
Ex.A4 : Brochure issued by Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences
And Research.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant in C.C.No.15/2007 :
Ex.A1 : Admission letter for undergraduate course dt. Sptember,2004 from O.P.No.1 to the complt.
Ex.A2 : Certificate issued by Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences and Research
Ex.A3 Marks list issued by O.P.no.1 in favour of the complainant
Ex.A4 : Brochure issued by Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences and Research.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant in C.C.No.16/2007 :
Exs.A1 to A5: Receipts issued by O.P.no.2
Ex.A6: lr dt. 12.7.2005 from the O.P.No.3 to the parent of the complt
Ex.A7:Lr.dt.23.8.2005 opp.party no.3 to the parent of the complt.
Ex.A8::Lr. dt.14.11.2005 O.P.No.1 to the parent of the complt.
Ex.A9 : Certificate issued by O.P.No.2
Ex.A10: lr. of authorization issued by O.P.No.1
Ex.A11: Brochure issued by Alliance International Academy of Health Sciences
and Research.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opp.parties
Ex.B1: Lr.dt.28.7.2000 from WHO
Ex.B2:Lr. dt. 7.6.2002 from ECFMG to O.P.No.1
Ex.B3: Lr. dt. 28.11.2001 from General Medical Council to O.P.No.1
Ex.B4: Authorisation letter dt. 28.7.2003given by O.P.no.1
Ex.B5:Charter of the University of Seychelles American Institute of
Medicine dt. 23.6.2000 issued by President of Republic of
Seychelles
Ex.B6:Lr. of authorization issued by O.P.No.1
Ex.B7:Brochure issued by Alliance International Academy of Health
Sciences and Research.
Ex.B8 to B13: Certified copies of student academic track record.
Ex.B14: Charter of the University of Seychelles American Institute of Medicine dt. 23.6.2000 issued by President of Republic of Seychelles
Ex.B15; Lr. dt. 7.6.2002 from E.C.F.M.G. to O.P.No.1
Ex.B16:Lr.dt.4.12.2003 from Medical Council of India to Dean USAIM
Ex.B17: Lr. dt.2.5.2006 from Medical Council of Mauritius to Director of A.M.John Associates Ltd.
Ex.B18: Lr. dt. 1.6.2006 from Ealing Hospital NHS Trust to O.P.No.1
Ex.B19 & B20: Certificates issued by President of USAIM
Ex.B21: Notification issued by Medical Council of India.
Ex.B22: Cash Credit bill issued by Remya Advertising
Ex.B23: Receipt issued by Medical Council of India.
Ex.B24: Lr. dt. 10.1.2005 issued by Medical Council of India to Ms. Afroze Ahmed.
Ex.B25: Indian Medical Council Act,1956.
Lady Member Male Member
Dt. 8.4.2009
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Aashirwad Health & Education Trust 
Submit Complaint..
