Ludhiana coaching centre told to refund ₹15k to NEET aspirant

The complainant, who is preparing for NEET, said the Ludhiana coaching centre had only provided 15 lectures in biology, and a couple of lectures each in Physics and Chemistry; she alleged that the centre had shown deficiency in service by not completing the 45-day crash course

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked a coaching centre in Kitchlu Nagar to refund ₹15,000 to a NEET aspirant for failing to complete the crash course she had enrolled for in the stipulated period and pay an additional ₹3,000 to the complainant as compensation.

On March 18, 2020, Chaudhary had approached the coaching centre, seeking enrolment in a 45-day crash course for NEET. She was told that the course would cost ₹25,000 and classes would start from March 23, 2020, following which she paid the first instalment of ₹15,000. (Representative Image/HT File)

The complainant, Anjali Chaudhary, who was seeking coaching for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), had accused the coaching centre, Gian Setu, located in 68B, Kitchlu Nagar, of “deficiency in service.”

On March 18, 2020, Chaudhary had approached the coaching centre, seeking enrolment in a 45-day crash course. She was told that the course would cost ₹25,000 and classes would start from March 23, 2020, following which she paid the first instalment of ₹15,000.

After a nationwide lockdown was announced on March 23, the centre offered to provide online classes against the ₹15,000 payment already made to the institute. Chaudhary said classes started in April, but the Biology teacher took coaching classes for only 15 days, and only went through one of the two books in the syllabus, the physics and chemistry teachers only turned up for two lectures, after which they stopped taking classes.

Chaudhary contended that since it was a crash course and was to be completed within the stipulated time frame, the respondent’s failure to complete the course amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. She sought a refund, along with a compensation of ₹5 lakh. With no one appearing on the behalf of the respondent, the hearing proceeded ex parte.

In its order, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, “This clearly amounts to deficiency of services. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the respondent is directed to refund ₹15,000 along with composite compensation of ₹3,000 to the complainant within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order”.