LexBUDDHIST MISSION DENTAL COLLEGE. & HOSPITAL versus BHUPESH KHURANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 275 ,....-+ BUDDHIST MISSION DENTAL COLLEGE. & HOSPITAL A v BHUPESH KHURANA & OTHERS Civil Appeal No.1135 Of 2001 FEBRUARY 13, 2009 B ( DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ) Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ~ i - ·'Deficiency in service - Dental College, on mis-repre- sentation about its affiliation and recognition, admitting stu- dents to four years BOS course - Allegation of charging capi- c tation fee - HELD: Institute was neither affiliated to the Uni- versify nor recognized by Dental Council of India as was claimed in the advertisement - National Commission rightly held that there was total misrepresentation tantamounting to D "! unfair trade practice and there was deficiency in service - .. Complainants would be entitled to compensation as awarded by National Commission as also Rs. 1 lakh each additionally - They would further be paid Rs. 1 lakh each by Institute as litigation costs. E The respondents filed complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stating that .,, ·~ pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.7.1993 issued by the appellant Dental College and Hospital inviting appli- cation for admission in four years Degree Course of Bach- F elor of Dental Surgery relying on the representation made in the said advertisement that the appellant College was an institution under Magadh Univetsity, Bodh Gaya and Dental Council of India, New Delhi and Patna, they ap- plied for and were given admission after charging Rs. G ~ 1,00,000/- capitation fee/donation from each of them be- sides other admission and connected expenses. How- ever, when at the end of the academic session no exami- nations were conducted, it was found that the appellant 275 H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A College was not affiliated to any University nor was it rec- }.- ognized by the Dental Council of India. The Commission ' held that there was insufficiency of service on the part of the appellant and the respondents were entitled to the claims made in the petition. However, since there was no B receipt o.f the capitation fee/donation charged to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each, the Commission declined to grant relief in that regard. Aggrieved, the College filed the ap- peal and the respondents filed the cross-objections. ... -0-c Disposing of the appeal and the cross-objections, " c the Court HELD: 1.1 This is an admitted position that the ap- pellant institute is neither affiliated with the Magadh Uni- versity nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. In D absence of affiliation to and recognition by the institution concenred, the appellant college could not have started y ''- admissions in the four years degree course of BOS. [para 31] [287-D, E] Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. E Rajappa & Others Al R 1978 SC 548 1.2 The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamounts to unfair trade prac- + .. tice. The respondents were admitted to the BOS Course F for receiving education for consideration by the appel- lant college which was neither affiliated to Magadh Uni- versity nor recognized by Dental Council of India for im- parting education. This clearly falis within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. G Therefore, the Commission rightly held that there was 'de- ficiency' in service on the part of the institute and the r ~ claimants respondents were entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. [para 33-34] [288-G, H; 289-A, B, C] H 2.1 As far as the cross objections filed by the respon- ' ' --4 """' ' -:::( ~ I I ' ' • ( t--r BUDDHIST MISSION DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL 277 V. BHUPESH KHURANA & OTHERS dents are concerned, the appellant institute by giving to- A tally misleading and false advertisement clearly misled the respondents that the institute was affiliated to the Magadh University and recognized by the Dental Council of India. Though the respondents have clearly stated in the affida- vit that they had paid capitation fee/donation of Rs. one B lakh each and despite repeated requests, receipts were not given, which fact has been denied by the appellant. In view of the disputed question of fact, it is difficult for the Court to give any specific finding allowing the contention of the respondents and to give direction to refund this C amount with inter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.