Does Consumer Protection Act cover education? Supreme Court to examine

The Supreme Court recently granted leave in an appeal raising the question of whether education comes within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. Dr Virendra Swarup Public School and anr).

. The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna noted that a civil appeal titled Manu Solanki & Ors v Vinayak Mission University on the same subject was already pending before the Court, and tagged the fresh appeal with this matter.

. The petitioner had lost his only son during a swimming camp conducted by the respondent school on its premises. The petitioner claimed that this death by drowning was a direct result of gross negligence on the part of the swimming coach, lifeguards and sports teachers employed by the school.

. He had approached State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, but his consumer complaint against the school was held to be not maintainable. The petitioner then approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which relied on Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar to hold that educational institutes are not subject to the Consumer Protection Act. On finding that co-curricular activities like swimming do not come under the ambit of 'services' as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, NCDRC dismissed the appeal.

. In this Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the apex court, the petitioner has claimed that NCDRC took an erroneous view since it failed to consider the situation independent of educational, admission, fees purposes.

" The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has wrongly relied upon the laid down by this Hon'ble Court...in Anupama College of Engineering v Gulshan Kumar wherein this Hon'ble Court categorically held that Education is not a commodity and Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc there cannot be a question of deficiency in service," the petitioner argued.

. He further contended that his claim rests against gross negligence on the part of the staff appointed by the school, and not against admission, fees or nature of education, which the Anupama College of Engineering case dealt with.

. The following issues have been raised in the SLP:

1. Whether grave negligence by teachers on the school premises is deficiency in service with respect to the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the death of the student due to gross negligence can be covered by Consumer Protection Act for rendering deficient services?

3. Whether the parents of the deceased student are entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act?

4. Whether NCDRC has erroneously dismissed the petitioner's appeal referring to the wrong precedent?

. Advocates Abhishek Garg, DK Garg and Dhananjay Garg appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court.

. [Read Order]

Does Consumer Protection Act cover education? Supreme Court to examine

Pranshu Bharti

Related Stories