How To Get Your Education Fees Refunded

This is the season when schools and colleges open and the race is on for thousands of anxious parents to get their children into the best possible schools and colleges.

In this high pressure situation, they can lose their money in several ways. The student gets admission at an institution and joins it and later gets admission at an institution which he prefers. The chances are, the first institution will refuse to refund his fees. Most institutions print it in their brochures that fees can not be refunded

and they show it to justify their action. Many institutions collect fees not for one semester or one year, but for the whole course. This is not only a great financial burden to the parents, it also puts enormous pressure on the student not to switch institutions. Several institutions also collect the original documents of the students at the time of admission and refuse to part with them till the end of the course. This is again to force the students from switching institutions.

All these practices adopted by many private institutions are unfair trade practices and can be challenged in consumer courts at little cost and effort. The notice issued by the Universities Grants Commission (Notice No. F.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dated 23-4-2007 available here) provides a good starting point for such challenges. Consumer courts have given several decisions ordering refund of fees based on this notice. The relevant portions of the notice are as follows: "It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission that Institutions and Universities including Institutions Deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students; and retaining their schools/Institutes leaving certificates in original. The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate. Mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000 shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable."

All India Council for Technical Education has issued a similar notice for colleges and institutions imparting education in the fields of engineering, technology, architecture, pharmacy, etc.

The above notices apply to almost all colleges and if the student is withdrawing before the admission process is complete, he should get his fees back (with a maximum deduction of Rs. 1000 as processing fee). Consumer courts have generally ruled that if institutions have not provided any service (teaching), they can not charge a fee. The student may also be able to get a refund if he withdraws after classes begin. The institution will argue that the seat he vacated remained vacant and so the institution will lose money if it refunds the fee. So the student should insist that the institution produce the waiting list and find out if the seat was given to some one else.

The same general arguments apply if the institution is a PU college or a school, even though the UGC notice does not apply directly.

Stephen Aboagye, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

A Pro-consumer Judgement By The Supreme Court

Till recently, consumer courts (including the National Consumer Commission) were dismissing complaints concerning deficiency in medical service saying that expert opinion was not produced by the complainant to prove that the medical service rendered was indeed deficient. As is well-known, it is not easy to get a professional to testify against a fellow professional and so it appeared that it would be very difficult to approach consumer courts with any complaints against doctors or hospitals.

Such decisions of the consumer courts were based on a decision (I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC)) given by a two-man bench (consisting of Justices Markandey Katju and R.M.Lodha) of the Supreme Court which  equated a complaint before the consumer court to a criminal complaint and said "We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made, the Consumer Forum or the criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after the doctor or committee reports that there is prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be issued to the doctor/hospital concerned." This order was proving an insurmountable obstacle to many victims of medical negligence.

But luckily for the consumers, in a recent judgement (III (2010) CPJ 1 (SC)), Justices G.S.Singhvi and Ashok Kumar Ganguly of the Supreme Court have reversed this decision. They  noted that in two separate earlier decisions (III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) and III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)), three-man benches of the Supreme Court had clearly differentiated between consumer complaints and criminal complaints and had laid down that in consumer cases, expert witnesses are necessary only in complicated cases and the question of whether to call an expert is left to the discretion of the consumer court. The Justices pointed out that in many cases medical negligence is evident and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing proves itself. In such cases, it is for the defendant to prove that he was not negligent. Justices Singhvi and Ganguly also said "It is clear from the statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 that it is to provide a Forum for speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes. Such avowed legislative purpose cannot be diluted or defeated by superimposing a requirement of having expert evidence in all cases of medical negligence regardless of factual requirement of the case. If that is done the efficacy of remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 will be substantially curtailed and in many cases the remedy will became illusory to the common man." 

Since the order of Justices Katju and Lodha was contrary to the decisions of the two earlier three-man bench decisions of the Supreme Court, Justices Singhvi and Ganguly declared the order to be "per incuriam" meaning that it was an order wrongly made by the court and therefore did not set a precedent.

The conclusion is that consumer courts are now required to call for expert medical evidence only in complicated cases of medical negligence and conduct a quick trial in others. This is a great boon to consumers who have suffered due to deficient medical service.

Dzikamai Mutsikadowo, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Is this permitted?

Construction work is going on at FTS Circle in N.R. Mohalla. It appears that a statue is being installed at the circle.

In a decision given by Justices R.M. Lodha and S.J. Mukhopadhaya on 18-1-2013, the Supreme Court of India has restrained all governments from permitting the installation of statues at public places, especially at traffic junctions. It has clarified that the only construction allowed at traffic junctions is high mast lights and traffic lights.

B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parisha

"Garbage" Photo Contest

Mysore was recently awarded a prize for being the second cleanest city in India. But everyone knows that it is hollow distinction. To keep the officials from getting a swelled head and to highlight the sorry state of garbage clearance in Mysore, MGP is organizing a photo contest about garbage in Mysore. 

Photos of garbage lying on the streets of  Mysore can be entered in the contest. They will be judged based on the ugliness or unusualness of the garbage heap. There is no entry fee. Three prizes of Rs. 1000, Rs. 500 and Rs. 250 will be given.  

Each contestant can send upto three photos, but will be eligible for only one prize. Photos will not be accepted by post, but only through e-mail to mygrapa [at] gmail [dot] com. The deadline is 31-7-2013. The judges decision will be final. If you have any questions, call 2515 150.

V.Mahesha, Mysore Grahakara Parishat