Explore the nuanced legal intricacies surrounding the dismissal of a complaint against an educational institution. This summary delves into the court’s detailed analysis, emphasizing aspects such as territorial jurisdiction, the appellant’s role as a facilitator, and the implications of policy decisions by the Republic of the Philippines. Understanding the judicial perspective in this case sheds light on the broader framework of legal reasoning and application within consumer protection disputes.
Facts
- The respondent did not accept the offer to pursue the MBBS program in the Philippines and chose to return to India instead.
- Despite the appellant’s offer to mitigate the loss by providing a one-year bridge course after the abolition of the MBBS program, the respondent filed a complaint.
- The National Commission rejected the appellant’s response and directed them to pay $12000 in addition to compensation and costs.
- The appellant was acting on behalf of the College and the Government of the Philippines, as indicated by advertisements and invitations to the respondent through pamphlets and brochures.
- The Republic of the Philippines approved the abolition of the MBBS program and redirected students to the BS Biology program according to CEB Resolution No. 491-2008.
- The respondent joined the College based on an offer letter received on 31.08.2007 from HCMI, which aims to provide students with opportunities for quality education overseas.
Also Read: Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution: Duty to Serve Grounds of Detention
Arguments
- Counsel for the appellant argues that the complaint against the educational institution is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- The issue is under consideration by a larger Bench in Civil Appeal Diary No 12901 of 2020, regarding the amenability of educational institutions to Consumer Forums.
- Appellant claims to be a mere facilitator and asserts no control over decisions made by the Republic of Philippines.
- Appellant states that the liability cannot be imposed on them due to the subsequent decision of the Republic of Philippines.
- The appellant’s appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 allows for adjudication on both facts and law by this Court.
Also Read: Dismissal of Application Seeking Bail Relief
Analysis
- The policy decision of the Republic of Philippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum.
- The appellant cannot be considered part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office of CHED for the policy decision changes made.
- HEIs without BS Biology and M.D. programs must transfer MBBS students to other HEIs listed in WHO Directory or FAIMER.
- Such policy decisions cannot be the basis for seeking redressal against the appellant.
- At the time of admission in 2007-2008, there was no problem with the MBBS course.
- Subjects credited towards BS Biology in Grades 11 and 12 and the MBBS program shall no longer be credited towards the M.D. program.
- Students were offered to continue with alternative courses after the decision by the Republic of Philippines.
- The role of the appellant ends with securing admission.
- NMAT shall be required for students in this group for admission to the MD program.
- While documents indicate the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED, it played no role in the policy decision.
- Submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant holds considerable force.
- The aspect of RATIO in the judgement has been overlooked by the Forums.
- This is a crucial perspective that needs to be addressed for a comprehensive understanding of the case.
- The significance of RATIO in legal decisions cannot be underestimated.
- Proper consideration and analysis of the RATIO would provide a more balanced and well-rounded perspective on the judgment.
Also Read: Unfair Trade Practice in Insurance Contract
Decision
- Orders passed are set aside
- Complaint is dismissed
Case Title: HCMI EDUCATION Vs. NARENDRA PAL SINGH (2022 INSC 698)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002481-002481 / 2016
