J.M Malik, Presiding Member:— A few people mint money by leading gullible persons up the garden path. What is the use of an Institution which gives no benefit to its students? The precious years of a student should not be wasted like this. The money is the biggest seed of strife in the World. However, the Consumer Fora will not allow to earn the money like this.

2. Six students, namely, Afroze Ahmed, Deviana Sharon, K. Sri Divya Reddy, Sileveru Bhanu Siva Kumar, Sileveru Chandramouli and C. Dhananjay Yadav, took admission in medical degree course at Coimbatore sub campus of the University of Seychelles American Institute of Management (USAIM), which is run by Ashirwad Health & Education Trust/opposite party no. 1. Each of them paid Rs. 3,40,000/-, Rs. 3,40,000/- Rs. 6,72,000/-, Rs. 6,32,000/-, Rs. 6,32,000/- and Rs. 3,91,752/- towards various fees and hostel charges. They also incurred expenses to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- each, for purchase of books, though it transpired that those books were not relevant for medical education in India. They also incurred a sum of Rs. 2 lakh each on travelling. Appellant No. 2, D. Malini, is the Chief Coordinator and Academic Principal, of appellant no. 1, Aashirwad Health & Education Trust, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu and Dr. Fauzia S. Alkhairy M.D OP-3, is the President of USAIM, USA.

3. The grouse of all the students is that they were misled that the appellant Institution is having recognition/authorization from the WHO, the ECFMG and the GMC. This was an MD degree program which began in September 2004. There was also an advertisement in the newspaper which attracted the complainants and others, offering admission to medical degree course in the above-said Institution. On 20.04.2005, the complainants received a letter from appellant no. 2 to the effect that she was visiting Coimbatore Campus for three days and requested the parents to attend the meetings on 23 and 24 May, 2005. The students were informed that Aashirwad Health & Education Trust had taken over the responsibility of International Study Centre of USAIM at Coimbatore sub campus with effect from May, 2005. Thereafter, the complainants paid the above-said fees. USAIM through their brochure also mentioned that the Institution was recognized by WHO and GMC and misled the parents in admitting their children to the said course. Thereafter, six complaints were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaints vide order dated 08.04.2009 All the complaints were disposed of by one order. The OPs denied all these allegations.

4. It is clear that the OP did not have recognition from ECFMG, GMC, W.H.O but they were advised by University of Seychelles to conduct the course at Coimbatore despite these facts. They have not obtained permission from MCI which is a statutory authority and by virtue of section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Medical Council of India has been empowered with the prior approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for the conducting of the medical courses. Clause 10(A)-Permission for Establishment of New Medical College, New College of Study Etc., runs as follows:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law the time being in force:—

a. no person shall establish a medical college

b. no medical college shall

i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or

ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this Section.”

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset admitted that PW-1 Aashirwad Health & Education Trust has ceased to run. He was asked to point out the case of any student who after acquiring degree from this Institution had got a job anywhere in the World, but he could not point out even one such case. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the degrees of all the students were to be accorded by University of Seychelles. It was submitted that students would be imparted only theory classes in India and the clinical training has to be done overseas. The OPs claimed that they have never violated the rules of Medical Council of India. It was also made clear that there was to be a screening test conducted by National Board of Examination after completion of the course and even the prospectus issued to the complainants contained the same. They denied having received the fees. The counsel for the appellant contended that University of Seychelles is listed in WHO and the same is recognized by WHO and GMC, England as well as ECFMG. It was made clear that the programme was not under the purview of the Medical Council of India. The next submission made by the counsel for the appellant was that since the entire course and curriculum or the training is recognised by University of Seychelles, the International Study Centre did not opt for recognition from the Medical Council of India and the course had declared that there is no need to opt for recognition from Medical Council of India to offer the non-clinical course provided by a foreign University.

6. It was also submitted that the complainants failed in few papers despite repeated attempts. The complainants were not successful in few subjects and, therefore, they could not move to the next semester. When the parents of the students desired that some grace marks be awarded, they got annoyed when the OPs refused to do so.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the various High Courts and the Apex Court have held that in such like situation, the permission from MCI is not required.

8. First of all, he invited our attention towards the decision of the Apex Court in “Medical Council of India v. J. Saai Prasanna etc. etc.” [SLP No. 23641-23653/2008], wherein it was held

“2. The private respondents are students who claim that they have completed the MBBS course in International Medical and Technological University (‘IMT University’ for short), a foreign University situated in Tanzania. The said university was established in Tanzania, by Vignan Education Foundation, an organization based in India. They fall under two categories. The first category are those who underwent the first two terms (Pre-clinical and Para clinical courses of 18 months each) between October 1998 and May 2002 at Katuri Medical College and Hospital, Guntur (which was, at that point of time, an unrecognized medical college) and the last term (the clinical course of 18 months) at Tanzania between June 2002 to November 2003.January 2004. The second category of students are those who underwent the entire course of study at Tanzania.

3. “……… Some of the students were granted provisional registration, completed the internship, but were declined permanent registration………”

4. The said petitions were resisted by MCI primarily on the following two grounds: (i) where an Indian student does any study in a medical college in India, established without the permission from the Central Government under Section 10A of the Act, is automatically disqualified from getting recognition of his medical degree, even if such degree is granted by a foreign University; and (ii) if a student's primary medical qualification is not a recognized qualification for enrolment as a medical practitioner in the country in which the Institution granting the medical qualification is situated, he will not be entitled to participate in the screening test examination.

9. As a matter of fact, a Judgement must be read holistically and not in vacua to the benefit of one party and to detriment of the Opposite Party. The Judgement further lays down:

Regulation 4 of the screening Regulations as it originally stood is extracted below:

“4. Eligibility Criteria-No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test unless:

(i) he/she is a citizen of India either whose name and the institution awarding it are included in the World Directory of Medical Schools, published by the World Health organization, or and possesses any primary medical qualification, which is confirmed by the Indian Embassy concerned to be a recognized qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution awarding the said qualification is situated;

(ii) He/she had obtained ‘Eligibility Certificate’ from the Medical Council of India as per the ‘Eligibility Requirement for taking admissions in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2001’. This requirement shall not be necessary in respect of India citizens, who have acquired the medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions or have obtained admission in foreign medical institution before 15th March, 2002.”

Xxxxxxxxx

Therefore, the fact that such a medical graduate underwent a part of the medical course of a foreign university, in an Indian college which was not recognized in India, will not be relevant.

9. Learned counsel for the MCI submitted that unscrupulous operators in India may commence and conduct courses in unauthorized institutions in India and make the students take their examination in a foreign country to secure a degree outside India and thereafter flood India with inadequately and improperly educated Medical graduates, by appearing and passing in the screening test. This apprehension is without any basis as the Screening Regulations have now been amended by the Screening Test Regulations Amendment), 2010

Xxxxxxx

11 “…………. Learned counsel for MCI, on instructions, submitted that if this Court upholds the judgment of the High Court, then the writ petitioners may be required to undergo three separate papers of pre-clinical, para-clinical and clinical medicine, each of 100 marks and thereafter again undergo a separate internship. As the Screening Regulations provide for a single paper, and all the writ petitioners have successfully completed the screening test, the students need not be required to pass three special papers again. However, in view of the long gap from the completion of the course, even those who have completed their internship will have to undergo internship afresh for one year to obtain permanent registration. On the other hand, those who have not done the internship in pursuance of the provisional registration shall be entitled to undergo the internship now and then seek permanent registration. To ensure that the students undergo such internship after provisional registration, the students concerned shall inform the MCI about commencement and completion of internship.”

10. Counsel for the Appellant has also cited many other authorities:

A. “Vignan Educational Foundation v. Government of A.P” [W.P No. 25123 of 1999 and W.P No. 25564 of 1998 passed by A.P High Court]”

B. “Government of A.P v. Vignan Educational Foundation” [W.A No. 1402 & 1451 of 2000 passed by A.P High Court]”

C. “Indian Medical Council v. Union of India” [W.P(C) No. 31115 of 2003 and WP (C) No. 33104 of 2003 passed by A.P High Court]”

D. “J. Saai Prasanna v. Medical Council of India” [W.P No. 19238 of 2006 passed by A.P High Court]”

E. “J. Saai Prasanna v. Medical Council of India” [WP Nos. 19238, 19239, 24645, 24774, 24795, 24796, 24797 and 24799 of 2006 and WP Nos. 4519 and 21046 of 2007 and WP Nos. 483 and 4022 of 2008 passed by A.P High Court]”

F. “Medical Council of India v. J. Saai Prasanna” [SLP No. 23641-23653 of 2008 passed by Supreme Court]”

G. “P. Srinivasulu v. Dr. P.J Alexander” [FA No. 61 of 2002, 89 of 2002 and 103 of 2002 passed by this Commission]”

11. We have seen those authorities. Those authorities hardly dovetail with the instant problem.

12. The appellant has miserably failed to prove that they have arrangements for the students either in this country or with the foreign countries in respect of clinical part of curriculum. The learned counsel for the appellant was repeatedly asked to name even one Institute with which the appellant had made arrangements for clinical training, but he failed to so. It is clear, therefore, that after training for one or two years, the students are left in the lurch. The degree of this course issued by the OP No. 1 is of no use. The same is a waste paper. After passing the course from this Institution, some other arrangements should have been made by this Institution, so that the students could get full benefit of the same. The students were taken for a ride.

13. There is letter dated 28.07.2000 issued by Dr. Julio Frenk, Executive Director, WHO, addressed to the President of Seychelles, the relevant portion of which runs as follows:—

“World Directory of medical schools”

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 23 June, 2000 addressed to Dr. Boelen requesting the World Health Organisation to include the University of Seychelles-American Institute of Medicine in the World directory of medical schools.

The seventh edition of the World directory of medical schools has recently been published and no decision has yet been taken about how the seventh edition of the directory will be updated, either in a printed form or on the WHO Web pages or both. Dr Boelen intends to publish information on medical schools that was received from the governments of Member States after the deadline expired for inclusion in the seventh edition, in the WHO newsletter Towards Unity for Health, which will come out twice yearly and which will be reproduced in both a printed form and an electronic version. We will start publishing updated information on medical schools as from issue No. 2 of this newsletter, due to be published in October 2000, and I am pleased to confirm that the University of Seychelles-American Institute of Medicine, Republic of Seychelles, will be included in the TUFH newsletter.

14. Thereafter, there is another letter written to Dr. F. Alkhairy, University of Seychelles, Victoria Mahe Seychelles, which is reproduced as follows:—

“I am writing to confirm that following the acceptance by the World Health Organisation of your medical school, the GMC will also recognize our medical degrees.

Graduates, who qualify from your medical school, will be eligible to apply for limited registration with the GMC. This will allow doctors to work in supervised posts that have been recognized as training posts, in named locations.

Prior to a doctor working in the UK under limited registration, they also have to pass an English proficiency exam (IELTS) and the PLAB test. Further details about limited registration and how to achieve it can be found on the GMC's website: www.gmc-uk.org.

Once again, I would like to state the GMC has no knowledge of your medical degree, and is only recognizing because WHO has recognized it.”

15. It is clear from the copy of the letter issued by the WHO addressed to the President of Republic of Seychelles that the Institute, in question, i.e, USAIM was not included in World Directory of Medical Schools on the date of issue of the letter. The letter from General Medical Council states in categorical terms that they had no knowledge of their medical degree but they were recognizing it only because WHO had recognized it. The letter from the ECFMG, simply mentions that the prospective students may send their applications on the website of this Institution. As mentioned already, there is no recognition or permission from any authority in India. It is clear, therefore, that the appellants have definitely tried to give wrong impression to the students to obtain admission in their Institute although they do not have any proper recognition/authorization from the requisite quarters.

16. To sum-up, it becomes crystal clear that the appellant has definitely tried to mint money by leading the gullible people up the garden path. They did not even attempt to take any permission from the Medical Council of India, but on the pretext of having recognition from the international authorities, induced the parents of the students to give them huge sums of money in the false hope that they shall be able to get degrees and become medical professionals. It is quite obvious that the OP/appellant did not make any arrangements for providing para clinical or clinical training to these students at any Institute, either in India or abroad. It is one of the rare cases involving huge deficiency in service which has resulted in playing with the careers of these young children.

17. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Court below cannot be faulted. The appeals are dismissed and we impose cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited by the Appellant with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under section 12(3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within three months from today, failing which it will carry interest @9% p.a till its realization. Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.