Coaching institute could not force online classes during pandemic: Delhi consumer forum directs refund of fee

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) in Delhi recently directed an institute coaching students for post-graduate medical degrees to refund a part of the lump sum fee collected by it from a student for physical classes a month before the COVID-19 pandemic. [Snehpal Singh v. Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd].A bench led by the Commission's President Inderjeet Singh observed that the outbreak of the pandemic was unprecedented and that the complainant could not be compelled to attend online classes instead of physical classes.."The outbreak of pandemic covid-19 was unprecedented. To impact online coaching was unilateral decision of OP, no option/ consent was sought by OP from complainant. Thus, OP cannot force online classes in place of physical classes, except consent of complainant," the Commission said..The complaint was filed by one Snehpal Singh against Delhi Academy of Medical Science under the Consumer Protection Act, demanding a full refund of ₹1,16,820 paid by him to the institute for physical coaching classes for a seven-month course..According to complainant, he paid the full amount under the impression that the institute would conduct only physical classes. However, he could only attend for a month before the COVID-19 induced lockdown was imposed.He sought a refund as promised by the institute before leaving Delhi for his hometown, but the institute urged him to try classes in online mode before choosing to terminate the course. When he sought to withdraw from the course after trying the online classes, he allegedly got no response..In reply, the institute argued that the complaint was completely misconceived and based on erroneous facts. Its senior manager said that the company had a no-refund policy and that the complainant made the payment after being satisfied with the terms of the policy, which were printed on the fee receipt.It was also argued that the complainant withdrew in a whimsical manner two months later, after attending classes, and demanded a refund on not being able to complete the course due to unforeseen circumstances.Yet, as a gesture of goodwill, the company considered his request before denying it, the manager said. On that account, he sought dismissal of the complaint..The Commission acknowledged that the institute mentioned a no-refund policy, but failed to mention it in emails dealing with the refund request of the complainant. It also noted that the terms and conditions of the institute provided that in certain circumstances, no refund will be issued to a student. However, the conditions were not violated by the complainant. Hence, it ruled that the terms and conditions supported the complainant's claim..Further, the Commission observed that the complainant's pleading that online classes were getting disrupted due to technical glitches carried weight, as smooth internet services were affected due to the pandemic."It is undisputed facts between the parties that coaching to be imparted to the students admitted in the institute of the OP side was undoubtedly for the ‘physical classes’ and not through the online mode. The pleadings of the complainant in his defence carries weight that the online classes was having disruption and not in continuity due to the technical glitches and net problem which was common at that time as smooth services were affected due to Covid-19," it said..Moreover, the Commission cited the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's judgment in FIITJEE Ltd v. Minathi Rath, where directions were issued to all coaching institutes to charge lump sums for at the most three months for courses that are up to a year, and at most six months for courses longer than a year..It thus ruled that the institute engaged in unfair trade practice and provided deficient service, directing it to refund ₹1,00,132 of the ₹1,16,820 paid by the complainant, in addition to ₹5,000 as damages for mental harassment..[Read Order]