A Rohtak consumer commission has directed a private medical college to refund ₹2.25 lakh in security and library deposits to a former MBBS student, holding that the absence of the original receipt could not by itself justify withholding money that was otherwise shown to have been deposited.
The commission also awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, taking the total amount payable to ₹2.40 lakh.
President Nagender Singh Kadian and members Dr Tripti Pannu and Dr Vijender Singh passed the order on September 24 while deciding a complaint filed by a 26-year-old former medical student.
Original Receipt Not Sole Basis To Deny Refund
The commission found that documentary material supported the complainant’s claim regarding payment of the refundable security amount. It said the colleges had also failed to establish that the money had already been refunded, adjusted or utilised towards any lawful liability of the student.
It further noted that a copy of the receipt was available on record and that the complainant had furnished an affidavit explaining that the original receipt had been lost.
According to the commission, withholding the refundable security and library security only because the original receipt was unavailable amounted to deficiency in service in the circumstances of the case.
Student Had Deposited ₹2.25 Lakh In 2012
The complainant said he was admitted to the private medical college in 2012 and deposited ₹2 lakh as refundable security and another ₹25,000 as refundable library security on September 15 that year.
The institute was later closed for administrative reasons, following which its students were transferred to different medical colleges in Haryana. The complainant was shifted to a college in Hisar in 2017 and completed his MBBS course, including internship, in January 2019.
He subsequently approached the principal in 2019 seeking refund of the ₹2.25 lakh deposit and submitted a copy of the receipt. The college, however, asked him to produce the original receipt.
The student said the original document had been lost and could not be traced. Despite repeated requests, the amount was not released, prompting him to approach the consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund and compensation.
He was represented by advocate Anurag Malik.
College Insisted On Original Fee Receipt
The college argued that the security amount could not be refunded because the complainant had failed to produce the original receipt. It also submitted that students of every batch had been instructed to submit their original fee receipts.
The commission, however, noted that the complainant’s status as a former student of the erstwhile institution and his subsequent transfer to another college were undisputed.
It also recorded that the colleges themselves acknowledged that security amounts had been refunded to other similarly placed students following a government decision. Some students, the commission noted, had also received refunds after later submitting their receipts.
The commission concluded that the refundable nature of the security amount was established from the record and directed payment of ₹2.25 lakh to the complainant, along with ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
