HCMI EDUCATIONversusNARENDRA PAL SINGH

86                      [2022]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    13 S.C.R. 86               [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A                            HCMI EDUCATION
                                       v.
                          NARENDRA PAL SINGH
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2016)
B                               JULY 11, 2022
             [ABHAY S. OKA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
            Education – Admission in foreign country – Course abolished
     by the country – Liability of appellant-facilitator – Respondent
     approached the appellant for seeking admission in Philippines to
C
     the MBBS course – Admission was secured in the college for the
     academic year 2007-2008 – Responded joined the college- By
     resolution dated 22.09.2008, the Republic of Philippines approved
     to abolish the MBBS programme from the school year 2008-2009
     and made it applicable to students who got admitted for the year
D    2007-2008 – The students who already got admitted under MBBS
     Course were offered an alternative course – Respondent did not
     accept the offer and came back to India and lodged the complaint
     against the appellant – All forums below, including the NCDRC
     rejected the appellant’s submission that it has no liability and asked
     to pay $1200, apart from compensation and costs – Appellant
E
     approached the Supreme Court and submitted that appellant is only
     a facilitator and it has no control over the policy decision of the
     Republic of Philippines – Held: Appellant played no role in policy
     decision of Republic of Philippines – The role of appellant stopped
     when the admission of respondent was secured – The appellant
F    cannot be considered a part of the Republic of Philippines or the
     office of Commission on Higher Education for the policy decision
     making, therefore no vicarious liability can be fastened on appellant
     – Orders passed by lower forums were set aside – Complaint dismissed
     – Appeal allowed.
G          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2481
     of 2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2013 of the National
     Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
     Petition No. 2161 of 2012.
H
                                      86
           HCMI EDUCATION v. NARENDRA PAL SINGH                                87


      Awanish Kumar, Shiv Kumar Pandey, Chandrashekhar A.                      A
Chakalabbi, Anshul Rai, Girish Deendayalan, Vinayakam Gupta, Abhinav
Garg, Bankey Bihari, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Mrs. Shiel Sethi, Adv. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                               B
      M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
       1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. When the
matter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2022, there was no
representation on behalf of the respondent. So, after hearing the counsel
for the appellant, we adjourned the matter to 01.07.2022 in order to           C
extend an opportunity to the respondent. As we find the same situation
continues to prevail by the absence of the respondent, we are inclined to
dispose of this appeal upon once again hearing counsel for the appellant.
      FACTS IN BRIEF:
       2. The respondent before us approached the appellant for seeking        D
admission in Philippines to the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery
(MBBS) course. Accordingly, an admission was secured with M/s Emilio
Aguinaldo (for short ‘College’) for the academic year 2007-2008. Fees
were paid by the respondent through the appellant. The appellant gave
sufficient indication that it was acting on behalf of not only the College,
                                                                               E
but also the Government vide an advertisement by inviting Respondent
through Pamphlet, Brochure supplied accordingly:-
      a.    “The Republic of Philippines and the Commission on Higher
            Education has appointed Healthcare Management
            International (HCMI) as their sole authorized representative
                                                                               F
            of India.
      b.    HCMI Mission is to provide students with an opportunity to
            attain quality education overseas by introducing them to
            reputable universities, thus, allowing them to make apt choices.
            HCMI do this by partnering with reputable universities that
            deliver relevant, up-to-date knowledge.                            G

      c.    Access to quality medical education
      d.    Information packages on courses and fee structures.
      e.    Guidance for loans through trusted banks, if required.
                                                                               H
88              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A          f.   Information on eligibility requirements.
           g.   Guidance in processing student visa.
           h.   Counselling in making an apt decision.
           i.   Step by step guidance through the application process.”
B           3. The respondent joined the College upon receiving the offer
     letter dated 31.08.2007. Vide Resolution No. 583 of 2007 of the
     Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the College got the application
     for approval to offer MBBS programme effective from 2007-2008.
            4. The respondent joined the College, which was arrayed as
C    respondent No. 2, and set ex-parte before the Consumer Disputes
     Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh. By the resolution dated 22.09.2008,
     the Republic of Philippines approved to abolish the MBBS programme
     from the School Year (S.Y.) 2008-2009 making it applicable to the students
     who got admitted for the year 2007-2008. The following is the resolution
D    passed:
                            Republic of the Philippines
                        OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
                 COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
E
         EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF 321TH REGULAR
         COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 22ND DAY OF
       SEPTEMBER 2008 AT HEDC CONFERENCE ROOM, HEDC
F        BUILDING, C.P. GARCIA AVE. U.P. DILIMAN, QUEZON
                                      CITY
                        RESOLUTION NO. 491 – 2008
           “WHEREAS Republic Act No. 2382 otherwise known as the
G          medical Act of 1959 prescribes among other things the
           minimum required curriculum for the degree Doctor of
           Medicine (MD) which is a bachelors degree in science or
           arts;
           WHEREAS, the primary medical degree to practice medicine
H          in the Philippines is the degree Doctor of Medicine (MD);
        HCMI EDUCATION v. NARENDRA PAL SINGH                             89
                 [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]

      WHEREAS, the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery             A
      (MBBS) is a medical degree offered in countries like
      Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which
      requires completion of Grade XI and XII as minimum
      requirement for entry into this program;
      WHEREAS, a number of medical schools in the Philippines            B
      have offered the MBBS program in spite of the absence of a
      CHED Memorandum Order prescribing the curriculum of such
      program;
      WHEREAS, the offering of such degree without the
      corresponding CHED-approved curriculum has led to                  C
      concern and confusion regarding the capability to practice
      medicine in the Philippines and abroad;
      WHEREFORE, upon motion duly made, seconded and
      unanimously carried, the Commission En Banc adopted to
      resolve as follows:                                                D
      RESOLVE, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Commission
      approves the abolition of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of
      Surgery (MBBS) Program effective S.Y. 2008-2009.
      RESOLVED FURTHER, that with regard to the existing
      students of the said program, the Technical Panel for Health       E
      Professions Education is requested to study, review and submit
      recommendation to the Commission En Banc for further
      decision, and that all medical schools be furnished copies of
      this resolution.”
      5. Consequent thereon, an alternative course was offered and the   F
MBBS students were re-directed to the BS Biology, pursuant to the
CEB Resolution No. 491-2008, with reference to such students who
already got admitted/accepted under MBBS Course. For better
appreciation, the aforesaid order is also placed on record:
                     Republic of the Philippines                         G
                  OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
            COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
      CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER
                                                                         H
90     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    No.46
     Series of 2008
     SUBJECT: ABOLITION OF THE BACHELOR OF
     MEDICINE, BACHELOR OF SURGERY (MBBS) PROGRAM
     EFFECTIVE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-2009.
B
     “In accordance with pertinent provisions of Republic Act
     7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994
     and pursuant to CEB Resolution No. 491-2008 dated
     September 22, 2008 the abolition of the Bachelor of -
     Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) proqram is hereby
C    made effective School Year 2008-2009.
     Colleges and universities which accepted MBBS students are
     instructed to comply with the following:
     1. MBBS students shall be re-directed to the BS Biology
     Program.
D
     2. HEIs that have no BS Biology and M.D. programs shall
     transfer their MBBS students to other HEIs that have
     recognized BS Biology and M.D. programs, listed in either
     WHO Directory or FAIMER and are willing to accept said
     students.
E    3. The abovementioned HEIs shall assess the subjects taken
     in Grades 11 and 12 as well as some subjects already taken
     in MBBS for credit towards BS Biology. In excess of the BS
     Biology requirements, some MBBS subjects may be credited
     towards the M.D. program after this group of students have
F    passed in validating examination administered by the
     concerned HEIs.
     4. There shall be no double crediting of subjects. Subjects in
     Grades 11 and 12 and those taken in the MBBS that were
     credited towards BS Biology shall no longer be credited to
G    the M.D. program.
     5. NMAT shall be required of students-in this group as it is
     required of other students for admission to the MD program.
     6. The duration of the BS Biology program for this group of
     students should not be less than three (3) semesters and one
H    (1) summer or a minimum total of ninety-two (92) units.
         HCMI EDUCATION v. NARENDRA PAL SINGH                                     91
                  [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]

                                  For strict and immediate compliance.            A
                                                 Quezon City, Philippines
                                                        October 20, 2008"
       6. On the incipient view, the respondent did not take the aforesaid
offer, but instead has chosen to come back to India with immediate                B
action by filing his representation to the appellant. Thereafter, he lodged
the complaint, notwithstanding the offer made by the appellant to mitigate
the loss with respect to the additional one year, as offered by the Republic
of Philippines for the bridge course after the abolition of the MBBS
programme.
                                                                                  C
      7. All the Forums below, including the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National
Commission’), rejected the appellant’s response and accordingly it was
asked to pay a sum of $12000, apart from compensation and costs.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.
                                                                                  D
       8. The counsel for the appellant contends that though the complaint
per se is not maintainable against the educational institution, apart from
lack of territorial jurisdiction, the issue can be decided on merits as the
matter is seized of by a larger Bench in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12901 of
2020 dated 15.10.2020 as to whether the educational institution is
amenable or not, to be decided by a Consumer Forum.                               E
        9. It is submitted that the appellant is only a facilitator and, in any
case, it has no control over the decision of the Republic of Philippines. It
is a policy decision taken by the said country and the fact that the
respondent got admitted with the concerned College and completed one
year is not in dispute. The decision of the Republic of Philippines (Office       F
of CHED) being a subsequent one, there cannot be any liability fasten
upon the appellant.
       10. Before venturing into the above contentions raised, the scope
of the appeal invoking Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 which was invoked at the time of filing of the appeal, requires              G
consideration. Section 27A facilitates a further appeal to this Court against
the order passed by the National Commission. Such an appeal can be
adjudicated upon by this Court both on facts and law. Since the appeal
provides for adjudication on the aforesaid two aspects, this Court can
decide the matter not only on the law but facts as well.
                                                                                  H
92              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A           11. On merit, we find considerable force in the submission made
     by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the documents would
     indicate that the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED also, it played
     no role in the policy decision made. The said documents are to be
     understood contextually. The role of the appellant stops with the admission
     being secured, which it did. The policy decision of the Republic of
B
     Philippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum.
            12. In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis for
     seeking redressal against the appellant. The appellant cannot be
     considered to be a part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office of
     CHED for the policy decision changes made, which was made not
C    pertaining to a single institution, but the whole Republic.
           13. On facts, the respondent did complete one year. At the time
     of admission and continuation in the year 2007-2008 there was no
     problem with the MBBS course. It was only in pursuance to the decision
     as aforesaid made by the Republic of Philippines, the students were
D    offered to continue with the alternative course, which the appellant has
     not chosen whatsoever. This is an aspect that the Forums have failed to
     take note of in the correct perspective.
            14. On the said analysis, we are inclined to set aside the orders
     passed and dismiss the complaint. As there is no vicarious liability that
E    can be fastened on the appellant and the appellant’s role cannot be
     stretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines, the appeal
     stands allowed.

     Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.
F    (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)




G




H