Laws laid down by supreme court



(Three judges bench’s Court ruling in the year 2004 in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital holding college unfair for their misleading information had confirmed it )

There had been a lot of confusion on the issue of considering education as service under the Consumer Protection Act  in the past two months .It happened  due to interpreting an order of  two judges bench of Supreme court wherein SLP was not admitted referring  to the earlier judgment in the matter of Maharishi Dayanand University v/s Surjeet Kour 201011 SCC 159.In the reffered case, it was held that university is not giving services under consumer protection act, re-confirming the stand taken in the case of Bihar Examination Board. On the basis of this five six line order in 2012 which does not discuss the facts or merit of the case and simply rejects admission of SLP, some forums in Delhi have stopped admitting education matters and gave the above said order to the consumer for their comment. There was resentment among the advocates as well consumers on such denial by the consumer forum. 

The status as on date is that National commission is taking up matters related to education day in and day out on education and even last order as on date pronounced on 21.05.2014 in the matter of FITTJEE V/S Sajjan Kumar Gupta, there is absolutely no mentioning of any order barring consumer forums to admit education matters. Hobble Supreme Court in the year 2003 in the matter of Usmania Islamic Academy v / s State of Karnataka, three judge’s bench comprising Justice V N Khare, Justice S N Variyavaha and Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan pronounced a detailed order holding educational institutes answerable before consumer forums by discussing every aspect covered by the educational institute in providing education to the students .Again there was Supreme Court ruling in the year 2004 in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital holding college unfair for their misleading information about the college.This was also three judg’s bench verdict.Its ample clear from the above discussion that university is not a service provider for its statutary duties but institutes are responsible for providing services for which they charge money in the form of fee from the students.

More so ,even the above non-admission of SLP to the Supreme court is considered as refusal of apex court to education as service under consumer protection act,it was two judges bench whereas three judges bench order in the year 2003 &2004 in above two cases shall have overriding effect on this order.
It is pertinent to mention that in one matter of Medical negligence Martine Desuza case two judges bench had made an order that expert opinion is mandatory before issuing notice to the doctor. This order was set asid by another order in the matter of Nikhil superspeciality Hospital case referring to the earlier three judges bench order in the matter of Methew Jecob case decided earlier .The same treatment can be given to the cases on education holding it service under consumer protection act. 

Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,