The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School & Anr. (First Appeal No. 852 of 2016) reiterated that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not apply to educational institutions.
In the Appeal preferred against an order of the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Appellant contended that his child died due to drowning in the swimming pool due to negligence of the School. He also stated that the Appellant was a ‘Consumer’ and that the case was a consumer dispute, as the summer camp conducted by the School was for commercial purpose and not covered under imparting of education. Swimming training was optional in nature and therefore did not fall within the ambit of basic education.
On behalf of the Respondent School, it was contended that the incident of drowning was not attributable to the negligence of the School as all necessary services and equipment were duly provided by them and the swimming pool was under strict supervision. It was also pleaded that this case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, apart from there being no deficiency in service.
Ratio
-
The NCDRC, while referring to precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar & Anr Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 ) and NCDRC (Manu Solanki and Ors. v Vinayaka Mission University I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC)), observed that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and education which includes co-curricular activities such as swimming, is not a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
-
The NCDRC therefore dismissed the complaint as not maintainable on the ground of it not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.