Given your reference to "consumer court", I assume this is in India, so you are also concerned with the Consumer Protection Act. Under the act, your complain would have to be about one of a number of things, including most likely
(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or
availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;
where furthermore
"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy
in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to
be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has
been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract
or otherwise in relation to any service;
and
"service" means service of any description which is made available to
potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of
facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport,
processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or
both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying
of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of
any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
There have been conflicting reports as to whether education is a "service", but the recent ruling (2 Feb 2021) by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School states its position:
It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational
Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 and education which includes co-curricular activities such
as swimming, is not a "service" within the meaning of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
The Supreme Court of India in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur rejected an interpretation by NCDRC which concluded that education is a service, instead saying
The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant
rendering any service...The case decided by this Court in Bihar School
Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard
with which we find ourselves in full agreement with
In the Bihar decision, (1) the defendant was the examination board and (2) the Board is a statutory creation. Para. 11
The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or
rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration
is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense
(including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But
the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function
of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having
successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact
that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of
answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there
may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the
Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the
examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We
are clearly of the view that the Board is not a service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer' and
consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against
the Board.
The Maharshi case likewise involved a legislatively-created educational institution.
In Anupama College Of Engineering vs Gulshan Kumar, the Supreme Court cited an order from P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors (which appears to be unpublished) that
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University
v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing
reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that
education is not a Signature Not Verified commodity. Educational
institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of
admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question
of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the
Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Given the definite policy of the NCDRC, you cannot file a complain in consumer court. Theoretically, you could appeal up to the Indian Supreme Court, if you can distinguish your case from the Maharshi U case. Two issues raised in that case and the Bihar case that is foundational for the later case are whether the institute is a statutory institution or a private business, and whether you are a paying customer (paying tuition, not just fees). Even the most recent NCDRC ruling leaves open a distinguishing factor, that the putative deficiency relates not to education, but to an extracurricular activity made available by the institution. I conclude that the Supreme Court of India has not made a broad ruling that "education is not a service", it has ruled more narrowly that in certain cases, a specific education-related entity is not providing a "service"
If you sue, it will be dismissed, and you will have to appeal to the highest court. You'll need to hire a good attorney to figure out if there is any realistic hope of getting further clarification.
