Dropout directive

CAVEAT EMPTOR

Education might once have been a religious duty or service, but it is now purely a trading or business activity.

And in trading, some well-entrenched norms are followed. But some educational institutions have not been adhering to these, instead taking full advantage of the demand-supply situation.

What happens when children have to shift schools? Schools these days charge for all kinds of services. There's a security deposit, annual fee, yearly computer charges, library fees, science laboratory charges, tuition fees, examination fees and a host of others.

Most of these are collected at one go. Most schools, however, refuse to return fees if a child leaves halfway through the year.

The above issue was raised years ago before the MRTP Commission. In the case in question, Dr K L Mudhok filed a complaint against the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), New Delhi, which had refused to refund the entire security deposit taken from him when his daughter was admitted.

The YWCA refunded 75 per cent of the security amount and refused to return the balance 25 per cent. It argued that the prospectus clearly stated that only 75 per cent of the security deposit would be refunded if the student was withdrawn.

After hearing the parties, the MRTP Commission accepted this plea and held that the students and parents had to abide by the rules and the terms and conditions set out in the brochure, admission form or prospectus.

This decision of the MRTP Commission, handed down on June 17, 1991, had the effect of educational institutions refusing to refund not only security deposits but also other elements of fees.

A few years ago, a school in Delhi introduced mid-day meals for students and demanded that every parent deposit the monthly charges for the same.

H L Kalsi, whose granddaughter was studying there, refused to do so, stating it to be an unjustified demand.

He had to withdraw his granddaughter from the school and have her admitted in another school where he had to deposit fees yet again.

Kalsi asked the first school to refund the admission fee, termination/annual fee, scholarship fee, bus charges and security deposit.

The school refused to do so, which led to Kalsi's filing a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

The case reached the National Commission, which by its order dated March 11, 2002 directed the school to refund the amount and observed that "to deny a child education midway on a flimsy ground (mid-day meal) is not only a deficiency of service but also unethical".

Recently, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had to consider the same subject in Shree Swaminarayan Institute of Technology vs Pravinaben J Upadhyaya.

In this case, the complainant's daughter was admitted to the Swaminarayan Institute and she deposited an admission fee of Rs 23,750.

Later, the girl, who had also applied for another course, got admission in Shri Chimanbhai Patel College, Ahmedabad. She joined the college, and withdrew from the Swaminarayan Institute.

Another student got the seat she had vacated. The complainant asked the institute to refund the fees and other charges, but the request was denied.

Pravinaben filed a case before the district forum, Gandhinagar which directed the institute to refund Rs 23,750 and also pay compensation of Rs 1,000 to the complainant.

The institute filed an appeal before the Gujarat State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the decision of the district forum and held that non-refund of the amounts by the institute was unjustified and unethical.

In its order dated September 15, 2003 the state commission observed that, "educational institutions are not commercial institutions and they do not thrive upon profiteering from fees collected from students. Retention of the amount of fees and other charges collected by the opponent in the aforesaid circumstances clearly amounts to deficiency in service."

The commission added that there was no question of retaining the amounts deposited because the institution had got another student from whom all the fees and charges were collected.

Educational institutions "" whether at school, college or university level "" have to appreciate that consumer courts have been taking their unethical and high-handed actions very seriously.

Therefore, they must act rationally and reasonably. The fact that some parents blindly sign admission forms which contain unreasonable conditions will no longer be treated as binding on them.