Talk to a lawyer @499

News

A Coaching Institute directed to refund of part of the fee collected from a student after it failed to provide physical classes during COVID-19

Feature Image for the blog - A Coaching Institute directed to refund of part of the fee collected from a student after it failed to provide physical classes during COVID-19

Case: Snehpal Singh v. Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) in Delhi recently ordered a post-graduate medical coaching institute to refund part of the lump sum fee collected from a student for physical classes, a month before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. The bench, led by the Commission's President Inderjeet Singh, acknowledged that the COVID-19 outbreak was unprecedented and ruled that the student could not be forced to attend online classes instead of physical classes.

The Commission observed that due to the pandemic, the institute changed its mode of delivery of classes to online and thus failed to provide the services for which the fee was charged. The Commission directed the institute to refund a part of the fee, taking into account the online classes availed by the student. The bench said that the institute cannot unilaterally change the mode of delivery of services and the student was entitled to a partial refund as he could not attend physical classes due to the lockdown.

The Commission found that the institute did not fulfill its obligation of providing physical classes and failed to mention the no-refund policy in emails, leading to confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the complainant. Hence, it ordered the institute to refund ₹58,410 to the complainant, which was half of the fee paid by him.

In conclusion, the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the coaching institute engaged in unfair trade practice and deficient service, and directed it to refund a portion of the fee paid by the student and pay damages for mental harassment. The Commission considered the fact that the student's online classes were disrupted due to technical glitches during the pandemic and that the institute failed to mention the no-refund policy in emails dealing with the refund request.