SC to decide whether consumers laws govern educational services or not

New Delhi: Given the fact that even three and a half decades after the Consumer Protection Act came into being, there has been no clarity on whether educational services come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, the decision of the Supreme Court to examine the issue in depth and bring a finality to the question is highly welcome

New Delhi: Given the fact that even three and a half decades after the Consumer Protection Act came into being, there has been no clarity on whether educational services come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, the decision of the Supreme Court to examine the issue in depth and bring a finality to the question is highly welcome.

HT Image

One also needs to remember that the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 has replaced the 1986 law, with a greater emphasis on enforcing and protecting the rights of consumers and the new provisions now need to be kept in mind while interpreting the law. Even more important, the CP Act of 2019 provides for a regulatory body –the Central Consumer Protection Authority-- to safeguard the rights of consumers and this is all the more reason to ensure that educational services come firmly within its ambit.

Complaints pertaining to the education sector broadly fall into three categories: the first pertains to examination-related issues such as errors in answer sheets and marks cards caused by shoddy evaluation and computation , the second variety pertains to a wide range of unfair practices, including false and misleading advertisements; and the third category is about the lack of safety consciousness in educational institutions, resulting in fatal accidents.

Barring some initial ambivalence in respect of examination related matters, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission took to task educational institutions on a number of issues and awarded compensation for the loss and suffering undergone by the students and parents, one of the most notable being the award of damages to the parent of a three year old girl child who drowned in a septic tank left open on the school premises. The Commission here made it clear that safety of students was an integral part of the service provided by educational institutions (S.Somasundaram Vs Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy, 2001)

However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law soon began to affect the decisions of the National Commission and the divergent views of the Supreme court only added to the confusion.

In Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana (2009), for example, the Supreme Court not only upheld the order of the National Commission but considerably enhanced the compensation awarded to eleven students who had lost two academic years on account of misrepresentation by the institution on its recognition and affiliations

However in PT Koshy Vs Ellen Charitable Trust (2012), the highest law court categorically held that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and therefore such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the CP Act, 1986. In a couple of earlier cases in 2009 and 2010 also it had held that an examination board discharging its statutory function was not a service provider, nor the examinee, a consumer. .

But in P.Sreenivasulu Vs P.J Alexander (2015) the Apex Court reiterated that educational institutions come under the purview of the CP Act. However in 2017 in Anupama College of Engineering Vs Gulshan it retracted to its position in the P.T.Koshy case.

So when Manu Solanki and eight others filed a complaint against Vinayaka Mission University , a large Bench of the National Commission examined in detail the decisions of the Supreme Court and concluded that all educational institutions and related activities were outside the purview of the CP Act and dismissed it. On the same grounds, it also dismissed the appeal of the father who had sought compensation for the death of his child by drowning in a school swimming pool ( Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs Dr Virendra Swarup Public School).

Both the cases went before the Supreme Court. While granting leave in a special leave petition filed by Rajendra Kumar on October 29, 2021, the Supreme Court observed that an appeal pertaining to the issue of whether education is a service within the CP Act was already pending before the court (Civil Appeal of Manu Solanki was admitted in 2020) and that this should be tagged with that.

This decision of the Supreme Court has raised the expectations of millions of students around the country and one really hopes that the highest court in the country will not let them down this time.