Articles
EDUCATION IS A SERVICE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
EDUCATION IS A SERVICE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
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. Hon'ble 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.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 b 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 20003 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,
