Hyderabad: Despite all the promises that coaching institutes put forward in a bid to attract students to pursue educational courses from their centres; there is never a 100 per cent assurance that the student attached to them will pass the examination they are preparing for.
In a similar instance, the promises of the coaching centre failed to bear fruit for the medico, who had approached a medical institute for pursuing training to crack entrance exam of Post-Graduation (PG) at All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
The case concerns a PG medico, Dr Rao, who joined the Hyderabad-based Bhatia Medical Institute with a view to gaining admission in the prestigious AIIMS. However, as alleged by the medico, he failed to crack the AIIMS PG entrance exam because the management of the medical institute gave scant importance with regard to the schedule of classes and many topics were not covered.
He stated that he didn’t pass the exam due to the institute’s wrong advertisement that a renowned doctor will take the classes. He maintained that he had joined the institute because of this particular reason only. Further, he alleged that the medical institute neglected in irregular classes, coaching for only 6 hours as against 10 hours and should have extended their course by another 1½ months to complete the course.
Alleging the aforesaid misconduct of the medical institution, the medico approached the consumer forum seeking redressal and adequate compensation.
On the other hand, the medical institute defended their side by stating that Dr Rao qualified for DNB Course Examination (PG) and is pursuing his studies at Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital at Bangalore. He secured admission into the said course only because of the training he received at their institute.
The medical institution authorities denied that they assured that faculty like Dr Thameem and Dr Mishra would be available for coaching classes. They also denied that topics in their course were left uncovered. In addition, they submitted that at the request of Dr Rao, more topics were included and they obliged him.
They stated that the contentions revised by the medico in front of the forum were false and his failure to secure admission in AIIMS is not their responsibility.
After hearing and perusing all the contentions and submissions presented by both the parties, the Hyderabad bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wondered whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the medical institute as alleged by Dr Rao.
The court observed that the medical institution displayed a list of all important and expert professors, who would be taking classes. Based on this list only, the medico had been constantly harping on the fact that Dr Devesh Mishra, was the main reason he joined the institute. On the basis of the copy of the schedule submitted, the court noted,
“Ex.A7 is a copy of the schedule of classes and Dr.Devesh Mishra was to take the classes on 16th 17th and 18th of August. The opposite party have not filed any material evidence to prove that Dr.Devesh Mishra, took the specific classes as promised.”
The court further noted that the institute failed to support their defence by filing the simple required information-whether Dr. Devesh Mishra, took the necessary classes as promised.
“The opposite party in their evidence affidavit have adduced that the complainant is a doctor, having seen the advertisements and having vetted their course material and visiting their institute only, joined their centre. They have very clearly stated that – “the complainant having made sufficient enquiries and ascertaining the previous experience of the opposite party enrolled for training”. That clearly shows that the complainant made and Informed choice. He was not merely swayed by their advertisements. It will be pertinent to point out here that neither side have filed any proof of advertisements referred to in this case.”
“If the opposite party was unable to satisfy the complainant, they should have 5 resolved it by returning the course fee in full or subtracting a part (for the classes he attended) and retaining the balance amount. Instead, they kept a dissatisfied and disgruntle complainant on their records by being negligent.”
Reaching its decision, the court held,
“The opposite parties are only coaching institutes and when they promise a certain standard, it should be observed carefully. That the complainant should obtain a seat in AIIMS is certainly not their responsibility but the path towards the flat goal should not be hindered by not delivering their commitments. In failing to do so, they have certainly been deficient in service and the point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.”
Stating that Since the medico proved that the institute has been negligent and did not fulfil their commitment in their institute, the court ordered the Bhatia Medical Institute to reimburse the course fee amount of Rs 45,000 along with additional Rs 32,000 as compensation.
Attached is the detailed judgment below: