LOADING...
When Ritu enrolled her son in a reputed coaching institute for engineering entrance preparation, the institute promised “top faculty, daily doubt sessions, and personalized mentoring.”
When Ritu enrolled her son in a reputed coaching institute for engineering entrance preparation, the institute promised “top faculty, daily doubt sessions, and personalized mentoring.”
Based on these assurances, she paid ₹75,000 as the annual course fee.
Within two months, the reality was very different.
Classes were frequently cancelled, recorded lectures were used instead of live sessions, and the “personalized mentoring” turned out to be a common WhatsApp broadcast group.
Ritu decided to withdraw her son from the course and requested a refund.
The Institute’s Response
The institute refused, citing a clause that stated:
“Fees once paid are non-refundable under any circumstances.”
Ritu was told that she could continue attending classes but would not receive any refund.
For many parents, this is where the matter ends. They assume that a “non-refundable” clause completely removes their rights.
When a service is materially different from what was advertised, the issue may amount to a deficiency in service.
Instead of arguing verbally, she collected evidence:
Recorded lecture links used in place of live classes
She prepared a written comparison between the promises made at admission and the actual services delivered.
Ritu sent a detailed email to the institute’s grievance cell and management.
The advertised faculty was not provided.
Live interactive classes were replaced with recorded content.
The mentoring facility was not delivered as promised.
The course quality was substantially different from the representation made during admission.
She requested a proportionate refund for the unutilized portion of the course.
When the institute did not respond satisfactorily, Ritu escalated the matter through the National Consumer Helpline (1915) and attached all supporting documents.
Within a few weeks, the institute agreed to a settlement and refunded ₹65,000 after deducting the fee for the classes already attended.
While educational disputes can involve multiple legal considerations, consumers may challenge situations involving:
A “non-refundable” clause does not automatically protect a service provider if the promised service itself was not delivered properly.
Faculty names are mentioned but not confirmed in writing.
Refund policy is not explained clearly.
Only verbal assurances are given.
Demo classes are not available.
Course delivery mode can be changed unilaterally.
Get the refund policy in writing.
Confirm faculty details through email.
Ask whether classes are live or recorded.
Keep copies of all advertisements.
Pay through traceable banking channels.
Many parents rely entirely on verbal promises made during counselling sessions.
When a dispute arises, the institute points to the printed terms and conditions.
Always preserve written evidence of the promises that influenced your admission decision.
“Consumers should not assume that a ‘non-refundable’ clause ends the matter. If a coaching institute materially changes the course structure, faculty, or facilities that were used to attract admissions, parents have the right to seek redressal through the proper grievance mechanism.”
Collect advertisements and brochures.
Document cancelled classes and service deficiencies.
Submit a written refund request.
Escalate through the National Consumer Helpline if necessary.
A properly documented complaint can often recover a substantial portion of the fees when the promised educational service was not delivered as represented.
