Supreme Court Holds Education Facilitator Not Liable for Policy Change: HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022

Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can an education facilitator be held responsible for a foreign government’s policy changes that disrupt a student’s course of study? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a student who was admitted to a medical program in the Philippines that was subsequently abolished by the Philippine government. The court held that the facilitator could not be held liable for a policy change made by a foreign government. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The respondent, Narendra Pal Singh, sought admission to the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) program in the Philippines through the appellant, HCMI Education. HCMI Education facilitated his admission to M/s Emilio Aguinaldo College for the academic year 2007-2008. The respondent paid the fees through the appellant. HCMI Education had advertised itself as the sole authorized representative of the Republic of Philippines and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in India. The respondent joined the college after receiving an offer letter dated 31.08.2007. The college’s application for offering the MBBS program was approved by CHED effective from 2007-2008.

However, on 22.09.2008, the Republic of Philippines decided to abolish the MBBS program, effective from the school year 2008-2009, which impacted students admitted in 2007-2008. The students were offered an alternative course, BS Biology, and a bridge course after the abolition of the MBBS program. The respondent did not accept the alternative and returned to India, filing a complaint against the appellant. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the appellant to pay $12,000, along with compensation and costs. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows for a further appeal to the Supreme Court against orders passed by the National Commission. Section 27A allows the Supreme Court to adjudicate the matter on both facts and law.

The Court also took note of the resolutions and memorandum issued by the Republic of Philippines, specifically:

• Resolution No. 491 – 2008, which abolished the MBBS program effective School Year 2008-2009.
• CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, Series of 2008, which redirected MBBS students to the BS Biology Program.

The Court noted that the primary medical degree to practice medicine in the Philippines is the degree Doctor of Medicine (MD). The Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) is a medical degree offered in countries like Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which requires completion of Grade XI and XII as minimum requirement for entry into this program.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the complaint was not maintainable against an educational institution. The appellant also contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
• The appellant contended that it was merely a facilitator and had no control over the policy decisions of the Republic of Philippines.
• The appellant submitted that the policy decision to abolish the MBBS program was a subsequent event, and therefore, the appellant could not be held liable.
• The appellant argued that the respondent had completed one year of the MBBS program and was offered an alternative course, which he rejected.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant was responsible for securing admission to the MBBS program and should be held liable for the program’s abolition.
• The respondent contended that the appellant acted as an agent of the Republic of Philippines and CHED and should be held responsible for their policy change.
• The respondent sought compensation for the loss and inconvenience caused due to the abolition of the MBBS program.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the appellant, as a facilitator, could be held liable for the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines to abolish the MBBS program, which affected the respondent’s admission.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in its judgment. However, the following legal provisions and documents were considered:

• Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the National Commission.
• Resolution No. 491 – 2008 of the Republic of the Philippines: This resolution abolished the MBBS program effective School Year 2008-2009.
• CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, Series of 2008: This order redirected MBBS students to the BS Biology Program.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The court invoked this section to hear the appeal against the order of the National Commission.
• Resolution No. 491 – 2008 of the Republic of the Philippines: The court considered this resolution to understand the reason for the abolition of the MBBS program.
• CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, Series of 2008: The court used this order to understand the alternative offered to the MBBS students after the abolition of the program.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was a facilitator and not responsible for the policy changes made by the Republic of Philippines. The court emphasized that the appellant’s role was limited to securing admission, and it could not be held liable for subsequent policy decisions made by a foreign government. The court also noted that the respondent had completed one year of the MBBS program and was offered an alternative course, which he rejected.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s role was limited to facilitating the admission process, and it could not be held responsible for the subsequent policy changes made by the Republic of Philippines. The court also considered the fact that the respondent had completed one year of the program and was offered an alternative course, which he rejected. The court emphasized that the appellant’s role cannot be stretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines.

The court quoted from the judgment: “The role of the appellant stops with the admission being secured, which it did.” and “In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis for seeking redressal against the appellant.” and “As there is no vicarious liability that can be fastened on the appellant and the appellant’s role cannot be stretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines, the appeal stands allowed.”

Key Takeaways

• Education facilitators are generally not liable for policy changes made by foreign governments that affect students admitted through them.
• The role of a facilitator is limited to securing admission, and they cannot be held responsible for subsequent policy decisions.
• Students who reject alternative options offered to mitigate the impact of policy changes may not be able to claim compensation from the facilitator.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The court simply set aside the orders passed by the lower forums and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an education facilitator cannot be held liable for a policy change made by a foreign government that affects students admitted through the facilitator. This decision clarifies the limited role and liability of education facilitators in such cases. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh clarifies that education facilitators cannot be held liable for policy decisions of foreign governments that affect students admitted through them. The court emphasized that the facilitator’s role is limited to securing admission, and they cannot be held responsible for subsequent policy changes. This judgment provides clarity on the liability of education facilitators in similar situations.