Bangalore Urban


Pooja Choudhary - Complainant(s)


Bangalore Institute of Dental Science - Opp.Party(s)


20 Aug 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1200/08

Pooja Choudhary


Bangalore Institute of Dental Science






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 20th AUGUST 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1200/2008 COMPLAINANT Kum. Pooja Choudhary, D/o. Pradeep Mohan Choudhary, Aged about 24 years, R/at No. 16/67, Civil Lines, Kanpur, U.P. Advocate (C. Venkatesha) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Chairman, The Bangalore Institute of Dental Science & Hospital, At No. 53, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 029. Advocate (G. Nagarajulu Naidu) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.6,18,000/- fees paid and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took the admission in the management quota of OP for the academic year 2000-01 and she has paid in all Rs.6,18,000/- on various dates, which is acknowledged by the OP. During the course of the said academic year complainant came to know that OP had taken excess of students than that of the actual quota allotted to it by the Government. Thus complainant felt that she is cheated. Complainant was prevented from appearing for the first year examination. Hence she was forced to approach the Hon’ble High of Court of Karnataka by filing the Writ Petition and obtained a direction against the University to permit her to appear for the examination. OP took it otherwise and started harassing her in one or the other way. Though collected the hostel fees she was thrown out from the hostel for 6 months, the staff were not co-operative. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant felt that her future is at stake, that is why thought of taking transfer to some other College and after obtaining permission from the University she took transfer. For no fault of her, her career is spoiled. Though OP collected the fees, it failed to impart the education as contemplated. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to them they have got the recognized quota and they have admitted the student. The allegation of the complainant that as against sanctioned strength she was admitted is false. Of course complainant filed the Writ Petition and obtained the orders from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The other allegations of the complainant that there is an ill-treatment and harassment from the OP staff, etc., are all false, frivolous and baseless. Complainant herself sou-motto took the transfer to Dayanand Sagar College after obtaining the permission from the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and so also taken back all the original documents from the OP on 06.05.2008 without raising any objection. So when complainant herself has withdrawn voluntarily, OP cannot be blamed for the same. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. As such they are not liable to refund the fees muchless pay the compensation. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took the admission for the BDS course with respect to academic year 2000-01 under the management quota at OP institution. It is also not at dispute that she has paid in all Rs.6,18,000/- to the OP under the various heads including that of tuition fees, lab fees, caution deposit, hostel fees, etc. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that when she was to take the University examination for the first year she was deprived of her admission on the ground that her admission is as against the sanction quota with respect to the said institution, that is why she was forced to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka along with other petitioners. The copy of the Writ Petition is filed. That means to say there is some kind of negligence and carelessness on the part of the OP in admitting the complainant at their institution as against the sanctioned strength and quota. This act of the OP in our view amounts to deficiency in service. If everything would have been fine there was no need for the complainant to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and seek certain directions. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that OP took it otherwise when she filed the Writ Petition and obtained the interim order and she was actually thrown out from the hostel. Though she has done well in the examination, expected marks were not given to her, most of the staff stood against her. Of course for all these allegations there is no basis. But still we find there is some force in the said allegations because it do happens when such kind of dispute crops up between the complainant and the institution like OP. The attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. For no fault of her, her future is spoiled, career is sealed. So being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant took transfer to Dayanand Sagar College after obtaining necessary permission from the University. This fact is not at dispute. 8. This circumstance clearly goes to show that everything was not fine with the complainant at the OP institution. Though OP collected the necessary fees as narrated above in all field, but failed to extend its service and to impart the education. Naturally complainant must have been put to untold hardship and prejudice including that of mental agony and financial loss. 9. The fact that complainant completed her second year at the OP institution then continued her education at Dayanand Sagar College is also not at dispute. That means to say complainant is able to complete her 50% of the academic career at OP institution. Having taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund 50% of the amount collected towards lab fees, tuition fees, caution deposit, college fees, etc., in all to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of August 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.