Summary
A student secured admission through the appellant, an Indian facilitator describing itself as the sole authorised representative of the Philippine Commission on Higher Education, to an MBBS course in the Philippines for 2007-08 and completed the first year. In September 2008 the Commission abolished the MBBS programme nationwide and directed that existing students be redirected to a BS Biology course leading to the MD degree. The student declined, returned to India and sued the facilitator before the consumer forum, which, up to the National Commission, ordered refund of USD 12,000 with compensation. The Supreme Court, in an appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which permits review on facts and law, set the orders aside. The facilitator's role ended once admission was secured;
Issues
- Whether an admission facilitator that secured a student's admission to a foreign medical course is liable for deficiency in service when the foreign government later abolishes the course by a nationwide policy decision.
- What is the scope of an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Provisions considered
- Section 23 (appeal to the Supreme Court from the National Commission), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The statutory appeal permits adjudication on both facts and law, so the Court examined the merits and found the forums below had failed to appreciate that the student had completed a year without difficulty and that the course was abolished by a later policy decision of a foreign State. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Held
- Though the brochure indicated that the appellant acted for the Philippine Commission on Higher Education as well as the college, the documents must be understood contextually; the appellant's role stopped with securing the admission, which it did. It played no part in the policy decision, which was not confined to one institution but applied to the whole Republic, and that decision cannot be questioned before a consumer forum. (¶¶ 2, 11, 12)
- The student completed the 2007-08 year without any problem; only after the abolition were MBBS students offered redirection to a BS Biology programme with credit for subjects already taken, which he chose not to accept. No vicarious liability could be fastened on the facilitator for the foreign government's decision, an aspect the forums below failed to view in the correct perspective. (¶¶ 5, 6, 13, 14)
- The questions whether an educational institution is amenable to consumer jurisdiction, pending before a larger Bench, and of territorial jurisdiction were not decided, the appeal being allowed on merits. (¶¶ 8, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission directing the appellant to pay USD 12,000 with compensation and costs set aside and the complaint dismissed.