Remedies available under consumer protection Act for Lack of medical attention given to student & Non issuance of transfer Certificate on Time amounts to Deficiency in Service

 

Remedies available under consumer protection Act for Lack of medical attention given to student & Non issuance of transfer Certificate on Time amounts to Deficiency in Service

B.N.M Educational Institution and Anr v. Kum Akshatha and Anr

Facts: The Respondent/Complainant, a child aged 14 years at the relevant

time, was a 9th standard student of B.N.M. Primary and High School, being

run by B.N.M. Education Institutions at Bangalore. In December 2006, a

group of students, including the Respondent /Complainant, accompanied

by some teachers of the school, came to Delhi for an educational tour to

several places in North India. The group reached Delhi on 24.12.2006. The

Complainant allegedly developed fever on 24.12.2006 and her illness was

intimated, by her classmates, to the teachers accompanying the students.

The case of the Complainant/Respondent is that no medical aid was provided to her, which resulted in deterioration of her health. On 26.12.2006, when the group was on a visit to Ranathambore National Wildlife Park, the

Complainant had severe shivering and seizure. Twice, she became

unconscious, firstly at 5 a.m. and then at 9.30 a.m. and she also vomited,

due to high fever. According to the Complainant, no medical help was provided to her even at that time. When the group was returning to Delhi by road, undertaking a journey of about 14-15 hours, the Complainant, allegedly not being in her senses, attempted to jump from the bus but only a Crocin tablet was provided to her, without taking to her any doctor or hospital, which resulted in further deterioration of her health. She allegedly bite her tongue twice, which resulted in bleeding and she lost senses. Though her condition continued to worsen, she was made to participate in a camp fire till the midnight of 30.12.2006 and made to travel to Delhi with the rest of the group. By the time they reached Delhi, she was allegedly totally drowsy and behaving indifferently. She was taken to the airport on 31.12.2006 without first taking her to a doctor or a hospital. But on account of her sickness, she was not allowed to take the flight. On return to the hotel, she allegedly vomited and fell unconscious in the bathroom. The door had to be broken upon, in order to rescue her from the bathroom. She was then taken to Jessa Ram Fortis hospital, where she was admitted. It was at that stage, that the teachers intimated the parents of the Complainant about her ill-health. It was diagnosed by the doctors that she had suffered a viral fever, namely, Meningo Encephalitis. The doctors opined that had she been given timely medical aid and attention, she could easily have been cured. She is stated to have become vegetable like for all practical purposes and needs to be bedridden all the 24 hours. Alleging gross negligence on the part of the

teachers who were accompanying her and the school management in taking

care of the child at the time she was in their care, control and supervision,

the Complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a

consumer complaint, seeking a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs towards medical

expenditure incurred upon the treatment of the Complainant along with

Rs. 25 lakhs for her further treatment and Rs. 40 lakhs as damages. The State Commission vide its order dated 9.3.2016 directed the Appellant to pay a total sum of Rs. 88,73,798/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. An appeal was made to the

National Commission.

Issue: Whether the teachers were vicariously liable to the student?

Decision: The National Commission held that the Appellant should pay a

consolidated amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- as an all-inclusive one time

compensation to the Complainant, along with interest @ 8% per annum

from the date of filing of the complaint. The Appellants are granted six

weeks to deposit the said amount with the concerned State Commission. On

such deposit, a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- shall be deposited in a Nationalized

Bank, in an FDR in the joint name of the parents of the Complainant, initially for a period of ten years. The interest which accrues on the said deposit shall be utilized by the parents of the Complainant solely for her treatment and wellbeing. The balance amount shall be paid to the parent of the Complainants. If the interest which is paid on the fixed deposit is not sufficient for the treatment of the Complainant, the parents of the Complainant will be entitled to withdraw part of the said deposit with the prior permission of the concerned State Commission. Thus, the appeal was disposed of.

 

Non issuance of transfer Certificate on Time amounts to Deficiency in Service

Davinder Brar & Others v. Ravleen Kaur

 

Facts: The Complainant, Ms. Ravleen Kaur, was a former student of class

IX of Doon Valley International Public School. It was alleged that the

Complainant sought a Transfer Certificate from Doon Valley International

School, but it was not issued to her in time, which resulted in loss of her one academic year. She filed a complaint before the District Forum and prayed for compensation for the alleged loss and injury due to the act of the Opposite Party school. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. The Complainant filed first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal.

Issue: Whether non-issuance of transfer certificate on time amounts to

deficiency in service?

Decision: School authorities cannot act in an arbitrary or casual manner in

issuing a normal and factually correct school leaving Transfer Certificate.

Such Certificate concerns the career of a student, and should be issued on

request with the due responsibility, and at the earliest. The NCDRC concurred with the findings of the State Commission that the school was not only “deficient” in its service by not issuing the Transfer Certificate on time, but it’s actions of withholding the certificate also constituted “unfair trade

practice”. It also agreed that the Respondent student must have come to the

Court only after she had approached the authorities for School Leaving

Transfer Certificate and it was not issued to her. Even when the consumer

complaint was filed, the Petitioner school could have acted with the due

requisite responsibility and most immediately issued the Transfer Certificate

requested for. The contention of the Petitioner school, that she was

academically a “poor” student, has no concern or relationship with issuing a

normal and factually correct school leaving Transfer Certificate on request.

It is nobody’s case that she had to be (erroneously) shown as a “good” student in the Transfer Certificate. Noting that the school had “unnecessarily and unwarrantedly acted in an intransigent manner”, the Commission upheld

the decision of the State Commission granting compensation worth

Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondent along with litigation costs. Practice of making parents and children’s to sign one sided agreement at the

time of enrolment is unfair trade practice.