DCDRC, Ernakulam, Kerala, while considering the matter where an ex-student of VLCC Institute who had enrolled in 2 courses, cancelled her admission due to delays in classes and her weak health, and had claimed a refund from the institute, noted that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 based on the fee receipts issued by the opposite party to the complainant. It was noted that the opposite parties failed to deliver on their promise by not conducting the courses as per the agreed terms.

The Commission also noted that instead of providing refund to the complainant, the opposite parties suggested purchasing VLCC products of equivalent value to the fees paid. The Commission pointed out that VLCC institute, which runs on its own without any control from a university or particular educational rules, is indeed a type of coaching centre. Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of DCDRC.

DCDRC expressed that “In the field of education, while many coaching institutions offer valuable services to prepare students for higher education, there unfortunately exists a presence of unscrupulous coaching institutions engaging in unethical practices, exploiting students and their families. These institutions should not have the right to retain the fees of students who choose to leave a course midway due to dissatisfaction with the services provided. It is essential to ensure fairness and prevent these institutions from imposing unfair terms and conditions. Protecting consumers, especially in the education sector, is of utmost importance to guarantee that students and parents are treated with the respect and honesty they deserve”.

The complainant, on January 18, 2021, enrolled in a six-month “Diploma in Cosmetology” course offered by the second opposite party, and she paid the full course fee of Rs. 1,17,329/- on January 19, 2021. She attended physical classes regularly until she tested positive for COVID-19 on April 6, 2021. Following her diagnosis, she continued her education through online classes. However, by the end of March 2021, the opposite parties ceased offering even online classes, citing a lack of faculty due to COVID-19. The course was originally supposed to conclude on July 18, 2021.

During this period, the Regional Head, Rajalakshmi, persuaded the complainant to enroll in two additional courses, namely “Advanced Diploma in Laser Aesthetics” and “Diploma in Beauty Culture.” The total fee of Rs. 1,62,000/- was collected on March 9, 2021, for these two courses. Despite collecting the fees, the opposite parties did not provide a single class for these courses. Consequently, the complainant decided to cancel her enrolment in these two courses.

The complainant decided to cancel her admission due to delays in classes and her weak health. She requested a refund from the institution but faced delays and false information. The institution offered alternatives, but the complainant refused due to incomplete classes within the prescribed time. The suggestion of the institute to adjust the course fees against the enrolment of a relative or sibling is not only unfair but also contrary to consumer protection principles. NCDRC even stated that fees paid by the complainant should not be rendered non-refundable in such a manner. Such practices are deemed unconscionable and voidable. The complainant, thus alleged unfair trade practices, sought a refund of Rs.2,79,329/ and Rs.2,00,000/ as compensation for mental agony, and the entire cost of proceedings. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission found VLCC to be liable for negligence and serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and ascertained the liability of VLCC by directing them to refund Rs.2,79,329 to the complainant for the course fees paid and to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, physical hardships, and deficiency in service caused by their actions and Unfair Trade Practices and also pay Rs.10,000 towards cost of proceedings.

.

.

.

.