HCMI EDUCATION versus NARENDRA PAL SINGH

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
HCMI EDUCATION
v.
NARENDRA PAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2016)
JULY 11, 2022
[ABHAY S. OKA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Education – Admission in foreign country – Course abolished
by the country – Liability of appellant-facilitator – Respondent
approached the appellant for seeking admission in Philippines to
the MBBS course – Admission was secured in the college for the
academic year 2007-2008 – Responded joined the college- By
resolution dated 22.09.2008, the Republic of Philippines approved
to abolish the MBBS programme from the school year 2008-2009
and made it applicable to students who got admitted for the year
2007-2008 – The students who already got admitted under MBBS
Course were offered an alternative course – Respondent did not
accept the offer and came back to India and lodged the complaint
against the appellant – All forums below, including the NCDRC
rejected the appellant’s submission that it has no liability and asked
to pay $1200, apart from compensation and costs – Appellant
approached the Supreme Court and submitted that appellant is only
a facilitator and it has no control over the policy decision of the
Republic of Philippines – Held: Appellant played no role in policy
decision of Republic of Philippines – The role of appellant stopped
when the admission of respondent was secured – The appellant
cannot be considered a part of the Republic of Philippines or the
office of Commission on Higher Education for the policy decision
making, therefore no vicarious liability can be fastened on appellant
– Orders passed by lower forums were set aside – Complaint dismissed
– Appeal allowed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2481
of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2013 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
Petition No. 2161 of 2012.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 86
86
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
Awanish Kumar, Shiv Kumar Pandey, Chandrashekhar A.
Chakalabbi, Anshul Rai, Girish Deendayalan, Vinayakam Gupta, Abhinav
Garg, Bankey Bihari, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Shiel Sethi, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. When the
matter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2022, there was no
representation on behalf of the respondent. So, after hearing the counsel
for the appellant, we adjourned the matter to 01.07.2022 in order to
extend an opportunity to the respondent. As we find the same situation
continues to prevail by the absence of the respondent, we are inclined to
dispose of this appeal upon once again hearing counsel for the appellant.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. The respondent before us approached the appellant for seeking
admission in Philippines to the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery
(MBBS) course. Accordingly, an admission was secured with M/s Emilio
Aguinaldo (for short ‘College’) for the academic year 2007-2008. Fees
were paid by the respondent through the appellant. The appellant gave
sufficient indication that it was acting on behalf of not only the College,
but also the Government vide an advertisement by inviting Respondent
through Pamphlet, Brochure supplied accordingly:-
a.
“The Republic of Philippines and the Commission on Higher
Education has appointed Healthcare Management
International (HCMI) as their sole authorized representative
of India.
b.
HCMI Mission is to provide students with an opportunity to
attain quality education overseas by introducing them to
reputable universities, thus, allowing them to make apt choices.
HCMI do this by partnering with reputable universities that
deliver relevant, up-to-date knowledge.
c.
Access to quality medical education
d.
Information packages on courses and fee structures.
e.
Guidance for loans through trusted banks, if required.
HCMI EDUCATION v. NARENDRA PAL SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
f.
Information on eligibility requirements.
g.
Guidance in processing student visa.
h.
Counselling in making an apt decision.
i.
Step by step guidance through the application process.”
3. The respondent joined the College upon receiving the offer
letter dated 31.08.2007. Vide Resolution No. 583 of 2007 of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the College got the application
for approval to offer MBBS programme effective from 2007-2008.
4. The respondent joined the College, which was arrayed as
respondent No. 2, and set ex-parte b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.