Consumer Angle in Educational Services

The article is written by Anubhooti Shaw, a 3rd year BA LLB student at Adamas University, Kolkata. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”

                                                              —Albert Einstein

Introduction

Consumers can be defined as the final purchasers of goods and services for the fulfilment of their personal needs and desires, which can range from natural products to market items and/or services. Consumers are the most important part of a socioeconomic system since every human being who is a consumer, to some degree or another, wishes to live in a comfortable environment.

The Education Sector is one such sector with a large number of consumers. This concept of students being consumers has been challenged several times in the courts of India. The conflict is ongoing. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides protection to government bodies, statutory institutions, and the private sector. The acknowledgement of customers' right to be informed about the quality, purity, standard, and price of goods and services, which is a potential device to avoid exploitation, is the most pragmatic component of this Act.

Analysis of Consumer Angle

In a recent decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi, in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Ruchika Jain[1], it was noted that the students appear in examinations, whether conducted by various boards of examination or universities voluntarily for the purpose of demonstrating their competency and knowledge in the respective tests.  This implies that they are desirous in receiving certification declaring their competency. Therefore, the National Commission held that such activities in respect of exempting examinations cannot be treated as a service, and consequently, students who wrote the exams cannot be treated as consumers.

It was further stated that this classification would be erroneous for two reasons. First, rather than the nature of the activities themselves, it distinguishes an educational institute's operations based on the source of the power or obligation to carry out such activities. Second, the classification ignores the fact that there is no distinction in the classification of services performed in the discharge of statutory functions and activities performed otherwise under the 1986 Act. The activities are not exempted from the 1986 Act's provisions simply because they are statutorily directed.[2]

The objective of broadening the definition of service was to include even those actions that, while not commercial in the same sense as day-to-day buying and selling activities carried out by ordinary people. This resulted in the customer receiving some advantage.[3] As a result, courts have held that the ultimate test for determining whether an activity constituted service, as defined under Section 2(1) (o) of the 1986 Act.

A student who receives educational services in exchange for a fee paid to the provider of such services. In such cases, the education offered can be classified as "services" under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 because the student pays a fee for those services. As a result, if a student is dissatisfied with an educational institution's services, students can approach to the Customer Forum and the Forum's subsequent decision can decide his position as a consumer.[4]

The question of whether the relationship between a teacher and a student in educational institutes was covered by the 1986 Act or whether, as a result, the activities performed by the teacher in respect of the student could be considered service defined under the Act arose for the first time in Smt. N. Taneja and Another v. Calcutta Distt. Forum and Others [5]. The relationship between a teacher and a student in an educational institute, according to the Calcutta High Court, is not that of a service provider and a consumer. Again, in Central Academy Educational Society v. Gorav Kumar [6], the Court determined that teaching is not marketable, whereas the selling of books or the supply of lodging is marketable and can be regarded a service under the Act of 1986. Then in the case of Oza Nirav Kanubhai v. Centre Head Apple Industries Ltd.[7] it was declared that private educational institutes (i.e., those that are not statutorily created) are classified as service providers, while students enrolled in them, or their sponsors, are classified as consumers, according to the National Commission.

There are certain cases where the courts have successfully claimed that deficiency of certain measures result in deficiency of services.[8] In the case of Bhupesh Khurana v. Vishwa Budha Parishad [9], the National Commission debated whether students who had been duped into enrolling in a phoney institution were entitled to a return of the paid tuition fee. It was held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

In 2009, in Bihar School Examination v. Suresh Prasad Sinha [10], in which it was found that administering exams did not fall under the term of "services" as defined in the Act, but rather constituted a statutory function. The issue arose after the Bihar Board of Secondary Education issued the same roll number to three different candidates and failed to announce the result of one of the candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 does not apply to statutory activities performed by statutory bodies in this case. The Board is a statutory entity in this case, and conducting examinations is part of its statutory mandate. As a result, the Bihar Board of Secondary Education is not providing any service in this instance. The candidates' examination fee is also not taken into account as a factor.

However, the findings in the case of statutory bodies performing functions outside the scope of service under the Act, 1986 are contradicted by an earlier Supreme Court decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [11], in which the Supreme Court held that a statutory body's activity is not exempt from the Act, 1986's definition of service.

Conclusion

The conflict of the beneficiary will be stretched even more because of how fast the education sector is becoming a hub of profits and monetary transactions. On lower level, if a teacher or university fails to meet this condition, it is considered a deficit in service, as universities and institutes provide education in exchange for money. However, it is equally important to recognise that the connection between a student and a university is not the same as a typical buyer-seller relationship. Only after meeting the university's criteria in terms of its rules and guidelines can a student claim his or her rights as a consumer of university services under the Act of 1986.

At the same time, a student shall not be given the opportunity to obtain any unfair advantage in violation of the university's existing rules and regulations, which are clearly stated in the university's statutes and Acts, by making unlawful demands as a consumer of services. To summarise, educational institutes are covered by consumer protection law if the complaint is genuine and based on the fact that the student's legal right or interest has been harmed as a result of inefficient and deficient service or unethical trade practises by the university or educational institutes.