Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana and Ors.
(2009) 4 SCC 484
JUDGES: Dalveer Bhandari and H.S. Bedi
Date of Decision: 13-02-2009
FACTS
The Buddhist Mission College [Appellant] published an advertisement inviting applications for admission in the Degree Course of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (for short, BDS). In the said advertisement, it was specifically highlighted that the appellant college is a premier dental college of Bihar established and managed by the Vishwa Buddha Parishad under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It was also mentioned right under the name of the appellant college that the said institution is “The Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital” under Magadh University, Bodh Gaya and Dental Council of India, New Delhi. Students, in search of brighter career prospects, believing the facts incorporated in the advertisement of the appellant to be true, applied for admission to the college in the academic session 1992-93. At the time of admission, Rs.1,00,000/- was taken in cash from students despite having mentioned NO CAPITATION FEE in the advertisement. No receipt for the amount paid by them was given. Students after a few months of the beginning of the session, came to know that the claim made by the appellant to the respondents in the advertisement as well as in the prospectus was false, because the appellant college was neither affiliated to the Magadh University nor it was recognized by the Dental Council of India and most of the claims with regard to infrastructure in the advertisement proved to be false. At the end of each year, the examination is supposed to be conducted, but the appellant did not conduct any examination at all by the end of 1994 and there was no hope of examination being conducted in the near future as mentioned by the students.
ISSUE
Whether Buddhist Mission Dental College, Hospital is liable for deficiency of services under the Consumer Protection Act?
JUDGMENT
Court relied on the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 548] in which it was held that “…In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community.” Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. This is an admitted position that the appellant institute is neither affiliated with the Magadh University nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. In absence of affiliation by the Magadh University and recognition by the Dental Council of India, the appellant institute could not have started admissions in the four years degree course of BDS. This was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamount to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS Course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognized for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
HELD
Educational Institutions are covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if there is any deficiency in the services provided by the educational institutions, then they are liable for deficiency in the services under the Act. In this case, court held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and students are entitled to claim the relief in the form of monetary compensation.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts,Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
