Cannot sue education institute over student failing in exam: court

AHMEDABAD: A journalist in Mehsana sued a university after his daughter failed in exams. The consumer court, however, rejected his compensation claim of Rs 2 lakh and said that holding exam is a statutory duty of the university and in this act, it is not a service provider and hence cannot be sued.
The court held that the university and student have service provider-consumer relationship so far as imparting education is concerned.But with regard to assessment and re-assessment of answer sheet, it is a statutory duty of the university and it is not a service provider.
A Mehsana-based journalist Ashok Panchal filed a complaint in February 2015 with the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Mehsana saying that his daughter Chandani was declared fail on Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University’s website with 14 marks awarded out of 70 in Business Statistics subject. This was a clear deficiency in service as she deserved 38 marks. She applied for reassessment by paying adequate fee. The rechecking did not avail any fruitful result, but reassessment added three more marks in the result.
The student unsuccessfully asked for copy of the answer sheet under the RTI Act. Later, the university provided her with a copy for personal assessment. She complained about certain errors, but the university did not respond. The journalist and his daughter took up the issue with the Governor, following which the matter was placed before a legal committee. But no additional mark was awarded.
After a long debate in January this year, the consumer court rejected the complaint saying that there is no deficiency in service on part of the university, and for reassessment, it cannot be held responsible because it is no service provider in exam assessment.
Panchal moved the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which too upheld the forum’s observation that in conducting exams the university is discharging it statutory duty and it is not mere a service provider.
In 2011-12, a business man in Bhuj two of Kutch district, Dinesh Somaiya had sued his daughter’s school – Matruchhaya Kanya Vidyalay – for spoiling his daughter Bhakti’s career for awarding less marks. He demanded Rs 20 lakh compensation from the school for not certifying that less marks were awarded to the student because of malice and vendetta.
The consumer court turned down Somaiya’s complaint on the ground that under section 2(1)(D) of the Consumer Protection Act, the relationship of the school and her daughter cannot be termed as service provider and consumer.