Order Date: 23rd July 2024
Order Name: New Delhi Institute of Management Studies vs Shamaneshwaram and 2 Ors.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 346-347 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member), has held the New Delhi Institute of Management Studies (NDIMS) accountable for misleading a student into enrolling in its MBA program under false pretenses.
Key Facts:
- Misleading Information: The complainant was informed by NDIMS and its admission officer that the MBA course was a regular two-year program associated with Madhuraj Kamraj University and approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Based on this claim, the complainant enrolled.
- Discovery of Fraud: Throughout the course, the complainant did not receive the promised job training. Upon filing a Right to Information (RTI) request, the complainant found out that Madhuraj Kamraj University was unauthorized to open an off-campus study center beyond its state’s jurisdiction.
- Initial Complaint: The complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Patna. The District Commission ordered NDIMS to refund the first-year fee of Rs. 1,55,000/- and awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and litigation costs.
- Appeals: Both the complainant and NDIMS appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bihar. The State Commission rejected NDIMS’s appeal but increased the complainant’s compensation to Rs. 35,000/- and added Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs.
NCDRC Observations:
- Deficiency in Service: The NCDRC upheld that the complainant was misled into believing the MBA course had UGC approval, which it did not. This misrepresentation by NDIMS was deemed a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
- Consumer Definition: The NCDRC confirmed that the complainant fell within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Final Decision: The NCDRC dismissed NDIMS’s revision petition, affirming that educational institutions are indeed covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The compensations awarded by the District and State Commissions were upheld as fair and just.
Conclusion:
This judgment reinforces the accountability of educational institutions in providing accurate information about their programs. Misleading students can have serious legal repercussions, ensuring that institutions uphold transparency and integrity in their admissions process.
