The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised an educational institute for making a student pursue an online medical course after assuring her of physical classes in the West Indies.
Sehaj Kaur, a resident of Sector 49-D, had filed a case against Trinity School of Medicine, Chennai, and Ram Kumar, assistant vice-president and the institute’s India head.
Kaur said she had approached Trinity School of Medicine after seeing an advertisement for admission to St Vincent, Caribbean, West Indies.
The complainant alleged that Ram Kumar persuaded her that after completing the medical course on their campus in West Indies, the student would have a bright future.
She said she was offered admission into a pre-medical programme at Trinity Medical Sciences University for the 2021 September term and paid over ₹12 lakh for it.
However, after admission, she was asked to attend online classes. She alleged that her “poor results” were a way to charge an extra fee.
The complaint alleged that in the second term, even the online classes were halted and she only received study materials via email. Kaur alleged unfair trade practices on part of the accused.
{{/usCountry}}The complaint alleged that in the second term, even the online classes were halted and she only received study materials via email. Kaur alleged unfair trade practices on part of the accused.
{{/usCountry}}She said although some of the fee she paid was refunded, ₹10,51,650 were still to be recovered.
The opposition party submitted that the complainant had exchanged multiple e-mails regarding her poor percentage. Then, a credit balance of $3,755 (approximately ₹ 3,13,469) was refunded.
The commission observed: “The complainant was provided online classes without her approval. All three semesters of the subject course and their examinations were conducted online and the complainant was not informed at the time of admission.”
The commission added that even when the complainant opposed online classes and asked for physical classes, the opposition parties did not provide them, which amounted to unfair trade practice.
“Once the opposition failed to render the promised services, they are not entitled to retain the balance amount,” the commission added.
It directed that the opposition parties refund ₹10,51,650 to the complainant, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.