HCMI EDUCATION versus NARENDRA PAL SINGH on 11 July 2022

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. When thematter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2022, there was norepresentation on behalf of the respondent. So, after hearing the counselfor the appellant, we adjourned the matter to 01.07.2022 in order toextend an opportunity to the respondent. As we find the same situationcontinues to prevail by the absence of the respondent, we are inclined todispose of this appeal upon once again hearing counsel for the appellant.

C

FACTS IN BRIEF:

D

2. The respondent before us approached the appellant for seekingadmission in Philippines to the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery(MBBS) course. Accordingly, an admission was secured with M/s EmilioAguinaldo (for short ‘College’) for the academic year 2007-2008. Feeswere paid by the respondent through the appellant. The appellant gavesufficient indication that it was acting on behalf of not only the College,but also the Government vide an advertisement by inviting Respondentthrough Pamphlet, Brochure supplied accordingly:- E

a.“The Republic of Philippines and the Commission on HigherEducation has appointed Healthcare ManagementInternational (HCMI) as their sole authorized representativeFof India.

b.HCMI Mission is to provide students with an opportunity toattain quality education overseas by introducing them toreputable universities, thus, allowing them to make apt choices.HCMI do this by partnering with reputable universities thatGdeliver relevant, up-to-date knowledge.

c.Access to quality medical education

d.Information packages on courses and fee structures.

e.Guidance for loans through trusted banks, if required.

Af.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 offerletter dated 31.08.2007. Vide Resolution No. 583 of 2007 of theCommission on Higher Education (CHED), the College got the applicationfor approval to offer MBBS programme effective from 2007-2008.

4. The respondent joined the College, which was arrayed asCrespondent No. 2, and set ex-parte before the Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh. By the resolution dated 22.09.2008,the Republic of Philippines approved to abolish the MBBS programmefrom the School Year (S.Y.) 2008-2009 making it applicable to the studentswho got admitted for the year 2007-2008. The following is the resolutionDpassed:

Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION

E

EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF 321TH REGULARCOMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 22ND DAY OFSEPTEMBER 2008 AT HEDC CONFERENCE ROOM, HEDC

FBUILDING, C.P. GARCIA AVE. U.P. DILIMAN, QUEZON

CITY

RESOLUTION NO. 491 – 2008

“WHEREAS Republic Act No. 2382 otherwise known as themedical Act of 1959 prescribes among other things theminimum required curriculum for the degree Doctor ofMedicine (MD) which is a bachelors degree in science orarts; G

WHEREAS, the primary medical degree to practice medicinein the Philippines is the degree Doctor of Medicine (MD); H

WHEREAS, the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery(MBBS) is a medical degree offered in countries likeBangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, whichrequires completion of Grade XI and XII as minimumrequirement for entry into this program; WHEREAS, a number of medical schools in the Philippineshave offered the MBBS program in spite of the absence of aCHED Memorandum Order prescribing the curriculum of suchprogram; WHEREAS, the offering of such degree without thecorresponding CHED-approved curriculum has led toconcern and confusion regarding the capability to practicemedicine in the Philippines and abroad; WHEREFORE, upon motion duly made, seconded andunanimously carried, the Commission En Banc adopted toresolve as follows:

RESOLVE, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Commissionapproves the abolition of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor ofSurgery (MBBS) Program effective S.Y. 2008-2009.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that with regard to the existingstudents of the said program, the Technical Panel for HealthProfessions Education is requested to study, review and submitrecommendation to the Commission En Banc for furtherdecision, and that all medical schools be furnished copies ofthis resolution.”

5. Consequent thereon, an alternative course was offered and theMBBS students were re-directed to the BS Biology, pursuant to theCEB Resolution No. 491-2008, with reference to such students whoalready got admitted/accepted under MBBS Course. For betterappreciation, the aforesaid order is also placed on record:

Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATIONCHED MEMORANDUM ORDER

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

No.46

Series of 2008

SUBJECT: ABOLITION OF THE BACHELOR OFMEDICINE, BACHELOR OF SURGERY (MBBS) PROGRAMEFFECTIVE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-2009.

“In accordance with pertinent provisions of Republic Act7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994and pursuant to CEB Resolution No. 491-2008 datedSeptember 22, 2008 the abolition of the Bachelor of -Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) proqram is herebymade effective School Year 2008-2009.

Colleges and universities which accepted MBBS students areinstructed to comply with the following:

1. MBBS students shall be re-directed to the BS BiologyProgram.

2. HEIs that have no BS Biology and M.D. programs shalltransfer their MBBS students to other HEIs that haverecognized BS Biology and M.D. programs, listed in eitherWHO Directory or FAIMER and are willing to accept saidstudents.

3. The abovementioned HEIs shall assess the subjects takenin Grades 11 and 12 as well as some subjects already takenin MBBS for credit towards BS Biology. In excess of the BSBiology requirements, some MBBS subjects may be creditedtowards the M.D. program after this group of students havepassed in validating examination administered by theconcerned HEIs.

4. There shall be no double crediting of subjects. Subjects inGrades 11 and 12 and those taken in the MBBS that werecredited towards BS Biology shall no longer be credited tothe M.D. program.

5. NMAT shall be required of students-in this group as it isrequired of other students for admission to the MD program.

6. The duration of the BS Biology program for this group ofstudents should not be less than three (3) semesters and one(1) summer or a minimum total of ninety-two (92) units.

For strict and immediate compliance.

Quezon City, PhilippinesOctober 20, 2008"

6. On the incipient view, the respondent did not take the aforesaidoffer, but instead has chosen to come back to India with immediateaction by filing his representation to the appellant. Thereafter, he lodgedthe complaint, notwithstanding the offer made by the appellant to mitigatethe loss with respect to the additional one year, as offered by the Republicof Philippines for the bridge course after the abolition of the MBBSprogramme.

7. All the Forums below, including the National Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NationalCommission’), rejected the appellant’s response and accordingly it wasasked to pay a sum of $12000, apart from compensation and costs.Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.

8. The counsel for the appellant contends that though the complaintper se is not maintainable against the educational institution, apart fromlack of territorial jurisdiction, the issue can be decided on merits as thematter is seized of by a larger Bench in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12901 of2020 dated 15.10.2020 as to whether the educational institution isamenable or not, to be decided by a Consumer Forum.

9. It is submitted that the appellant is only a facilitator and, in anycase, it has no control over the decision of the Republic of Philippines. Itis a policy decision taken by the said country and the fact that therespondent got admitted with the concerned College and completed oneyear is not in dispute. The decision of the Republic of Philippines (Officeof CHED) being a subsequent one, there cannot be any liability fastenupon the appellant.

10. Before venturing into the above contentions raised, the scopeof the appeal invoking Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 which was invoked at the time of filing of the appeal, requiresconsideration. Section 27A facilitates a further appeal to this Court againstthe order passed by the National Commission. Such an appeal can beadjudicated upon by this Court both on facts and law. Since the appealprovides for adjudication on the aforesaid two aspects, this Court candecide the matter not only on the law but facts as well.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A11. On merit, we find considerable force in the submission madeby the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the documents wouldindicate that the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED also, it playedno role in the policy decision made. The said documents are to beunderstood contextually. The role of the appellant stops with the admissionbeing secured, which it did. The policy decision of the Republic ofBPhilippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum.

A

12. In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis forseeking redressal against the appellant. The appellant cannot beconsidered to be a part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office ofCHED for the policy decision changes made, which was made notCpertaining to a single institution, but the whole Republic.

13. On facts, the respondent did complete one year. At the timeof admission and continuation in the year 2007-2008 there was noproblem with the MBBS course. It was only in pursuance to the decisionas aforesaid made by the Republic of Philippines, the students wereDoffered to continue with the alternative course, which the appellant hasnot chosen whatsoever. This is an aspect that the Forums have failed totake note of in the correct perspective.

14. On the said analysis, we are inclined to set aside the orderspassed and dismiss the complaint. As there is no vicarious liability thatEcan be fastened on the appellant and the appellant’s role cannot bestretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines, the appealstands allowed.

Ankit GyanF(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

G

H