Consultant told to refund Rs 14.66 lakh to 2 doctors from Gujarat

PUNE: The district consumer court has ruled in favour or two MBBS graduates from Valsad and Surat in Gujarat.

The court directed a city-based health management and consultancy service provider to refund Rs14.66 lakh with a 9% annual interest since October 29, 2014, to the two graduates for causing deficient service. The service provider also has to pay Rs10,000 costs to each complainant.

Between April and June 2014, Valsad resident Viral R Patel and Surat resident Naman B Zala had approached the firm, International Health Management and Consulting at Model colony in Shivajinagar, to process their applications to a postgraduate course at a German institute. Patel had paid Rs7.34 lakh, while Zala shelled out Rs7.32 lakh.

In separate complaints, the doctors alleged that the firm neither processed their request nor refunded their money after unilaterally terminating the contract.

The interest component so far on the refund works out to Rs1.81 lakh for each complainant, and will continue to grow till the firm makes an actual payment.

The bench comprising V P Utpat, Onkar G Patil and Kshitija Kulkarni gave the firm 45 days to implement the order.

In a written statement, the firm had argued that the consumer court had no jurisdiction over the matter, which involved a contractual obligation between the firm and the complainants. It denied causing any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or issuing misleading advertisements and pointed out that as per the contract clause, the firm was prepared to refund 70% of the amount, but Patel did not provide his bank details. In Zala’s case, the firm argued that he did not make the necessary disclosures, and so was not entitled to a refund.

The bench, however, observed, “The opposite party (firm) has admitted receipt of amount as alleged by the complainants. The opposite party nowhere mentioned in its correspondence that the complainants had suppressed material fact or gave false information. Moreover, the clause as regards deduction of 30% amount of the agreement cost appears to be unilateral and unreasonable. The opposite party had unilaterally terminated the agreement without any sufficient reason and refused to render the service even after accepting huge amounts. In such circumstances, this forum is of the considered opinion that the opposite party has rendered deficient service to the complainants.”