Mother cancels admission in 24 hours ‘denied’ children’s fee refund, wins Rs 1.2 lakh

The order added that the request for cancellation of the registration and refund of the deposited amount had been made by the complainant just the very next day, within 24 hours, even before the initiation of the process of intended services which was to be provided by the school to the complainant’s two children. “Therefore, in these circumstances, it has to be held that the opposite party did commit a severe deficiency in service in the present matter,” it said.

Change in relocation plan, school denied fee refund

The complainant, along with her family, was planning to shift from Crescent Park, Sector-92, Gurugram, to Sohna near the Goenka Signature School, which was situated within walking distance from her planned future residence in Sohna.

Therefore, she planned to get her two children admitted to the nearby school of the opposite party, GD Goenka Signature School Sohna Road, Gurugram. According to the complainant, she visited the school to get her two children registered, and, consequently, disbursed an amount of Rs 5,000 as registration fee and Rs 40,000 as admission fee each for her two children, which came out to the amount of Rs 90,000 in total.

However, later on, the complainant’s plan for shifting to Sohna was cancelled due to a high arise of financial circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, she raised a request for cancellation of the admission of her two children the very next day, on January 30, 2021, i.e., within 24 hours, with the request for the refund of the deposited amount.

She alleged that the school blatantly refused the refund by stating that there was no refund policy, prompting her to file a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service.

Non-refundable under refund policy: School

The school contended that its admission and registration fees were expressly non-refundable under its refund policy. It argued that the complainant had accepted these terms at the time of payment and, therefore, the refusal to refund the amount was lawful and justified.

Based on the complainant’s acceptance of the non-refund clause, the school maintained that it had legally, validly, and justifiably declined the request for refund and had committed no deficiency in service.

Academic session was yet to begin: Order

The commission held that the complainant had substantiated her case through documentary evidence, including payment receipts, email correspondence seeking a refund, and a legal notice. The school failed to produce any evidence rebutting these documents or disproving her claims.

It rejected the school’s reliance on its no-refund policy, observing that although the payment advice mentioned the fees were non-refundable, the educational services had not even commenced. The academic session was yet to begin, and therefore the school had not rendered any service for which it could retain the fees.

It further emphasised that the complainant sought cancellation within 24 hours of making the payment and well before the intended services were to begin. In these circumstances, the school’s refusal to refund the amount constituted a clear deficiency in service.

Takeaway

This ruling reinforces that educational institutions cannot rely on blanket non-refundable fee clauses when no educational services have commenced. It affirms that consumer rights prevail over unfair contractual terms, especially where admissions are cancelled promptly, ensuring schools cannot retain fees without rendering any corresponding service.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana helpline: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.