HYDERABAD: In an unusual incident—perhaps, a relief to several students attending coaching classes—a 28-year-old doctor sued a medical coaching centre for not prepping him enough to crack the entrance test for AIIMS. Alleging that the institute failed to assign doctors to teach classes, R Sankara Rao claimed that his performance deteriorated due to the coaching centre’s negligence.
The district consumer forum, apart from directing the coaching centre to pay back Rs 45,000, which the complainant had paid as coaching fee, issued a compensation of Rs 32,000.
R Sankara Rao, who had enrolled for medical coaching at Bhatia medical institute in Chikkadpally, was assured that he would be assigned to Dr Devesh Mishra’s classes. However, Mishra, who was a renowned pathologist, reportedly never took any classes during the entire course.
Rao also alleged that the institute didn’t cover all the topics that were mentioned in the syllabus given to him before joining the course. He said that these factors led to his failure to crack the AIIMS entrance exam, besides wasting his time and money.
The institute, however, claimed that there was no fault in their coaching techniques and that they never promised to have Dr Devesh Mishra as a faculty member. They refuted the allegations by stating that they didn’t miss out in teaching and claimed that they, in fact, taught additional topics.
The Hyderabad consumer forum 3, however, said that the institute failed to live up to the standards presented to the complainant. In its order, the forum held that the institute was at fault for keeping a ‘disgruntled and dissatisfied’ complainant.
The forum said that numerous e-mails were written to the Institute relating to the issue and if the institute wanted to address it could have refunded the complainant after deducting the necessary amount.
“The opposite parties are only coaching institutes and when they promise a certain standard, it should be observed carefully. That the complainant should obtain a seat in AIIMS is certainly not their responsibility but the path towards the flat goal should not be hindered by not delivering,” the order read.