Case: HCMI Education Vs. Narendra Pal Singh

RESOLVED, that the Commission approves the abolition of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Program effective S.Y. 2008-2009. RESOLVED FURTHER, that with regard to the existing students of the said program, the Technical Panel for Health Professions Education is requested to study, review and submit recommendation to the Commission En Banc for further decision, and that all medical schools be furnished copies of this resolution. 5. Consequent thereon, an alternative course was offered and the MBBS students were re-directed to the BS Biology, pursuant to the CEB Resolution No. 491-2008, with reference to such students who already got admitted/accepted under MBBS Course. For better appreciation, the aforesaid order is also placed on record: Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No.46 Series of 2008 SUBJECT: ABOLITION OF THE BACHELOR OF MEDICINE, BACHELOR OF SURGERY (MBBS) PROGRAM EFFECTIVE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-2009. In accordance with pertinent provisions of Republic Act 7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994 and pursuant to CEB Resolution No. 491-2008 dated September 22, 2008 the abolition of the Bachelor of - Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) proqram is hereby made effective School Year 2008-2009. Colleges and universities which accepted MBBS students are instructed to comply with the following: 1. MBBS students shall be re-directed to the BS Biology Program. 2. HEIs that have no BS Biology and M.D. programs shall transfer their MBBS students to other HEIs that have recognized BS Biology and M.D. programs, listed in either WHO Directory or FAIMER and are willing to accept said students. 3. The abovementioned HEIs shall assess the subjects taken in Grades 11 and 12 as well as some subjects already taken in MBBS for credit towards BS Biology. In excess of the BS Biology requirements, some MBBS subjects may be credited towards the M.D. program after this group of students have passed in validating examination administered by the concerned HEIs. 4. There shall be no double crediting of subjects. Subjects in Grades 11 and 12 and those taken in the MBBS that were credited towards BS Biology shall no longer be credited to the M.D. program. 5. NMAT shall be required of students-in this group as it is required of other students for admission to the MD program. 6. The duration of the BS Biology program for this group of students 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, Philippines October 20, 2008. 6. On the incipient view, the respondent did not take the aforesaid offer, but instead has chosen to come back to India with immediate action by filing his representation to the appellant. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint, notwithstanding the offer made by the appellant to mitigate the loss with respect to the additional one year, as offered by the Republic of Philippines for the bridge course after the abolition of the MBBS programme. 7. All the Forums below, including the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission), rejected the appellants response and accordingly it was asked 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 complaint per se is not maintainable against the educational institution, apart from lack of territorial jurisdiction, the issue can be decided on merits as the matter is seized of by a larger Bench in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12901 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020 as to whether the educational institution is amenable or not, to be decided by a Consumer Forum. 9. It is submitted that the appellant is only a facilitator and, in any case, it has no control over the decision of the Republic of Philippines. It is a policy decision taken by the said country and the fact that the respondent got admitted with the concerned College and completed one year is not in dispute. The decision of the Republic of Philippines (Office of CHED) being a subsequent one, there cannot be any liability fasten upon the appellant. 10. Before venturing into the above contentions raised, the scope of the appeal invoking Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was invoked at the time of filing of the appeal, requires consideration. Section 27A facilitates a further appeal to this Court against the order passed by the National Commission. Such an appeal can be adjudicated upon by this Court both on facts and law. Since the appeal provides for adjudication on the aforesaid two aspects, this Court can decide the matter not only on the law but facts as well. 11. On merit, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the documents would indicate that the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED also, it played no role in the policy decision made. The said documents are to be understood contextually. The role of the appellant stops with the admission being secured, which it did. The policy decision of the Republic of Philippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum. 12. In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis for seeking redressal against the appellant. The appellant cannot be considered to be a part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office of CHED for the policy decision changes made, which was made not pertaining to a single institution, but the whole Republic. 13. On facts, the respondent did complete one year. At the time of admission and continuation in the year 2007-2008 there was no problem with the MBBS course. It was only in pursuance to the decision as aforesaid made by the Republic of Philippines, the students were offered to continue with the alternative course, which the appellant has not chosen whatsoever. This is an aspect that the Forums have failed to take note of in the correct perspective.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. On merit, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the documents would indicate that the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED also, it played no role in the policy decision made. The said documents are to be understood contextually. The role of the appellant stops with the admission being secured, which it did. The policy decision of the Republic of Philippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum.12. In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis for seeking redressal against the appellant. The appellant cannot be considered to be a part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office of CHED for the policy decision changes made, which was made not pertaining to a single institution, but the whole Republic.13. On facts, the respondent did complete one year. At the time of admission and continuation in the year 2007-2008 there was no problem with the MBBS course. It was only in pursuance to the decision as aforesaid made by the Republic of Philippines, the students were offered to continue with the alternative course, which the appellant has not chosen whatsoever. This is an aspect that the Forums have failed to take note of in the correct perspective.