“The main contention raised by the opposite parties that ‘fee once remitted will not be refunded under any circumstances’ cannot be accepted because when a student or his/her parents signs the admission form, they have no bargaining power to negotiate, or refuse to sign any particular clause in the admission form. Hence, such clauses should not be held against the student.” the court said on May 22, 2026.

Admission taken before pandemic disrupted plans

According to the complaint, Akshay wished to attend the crash course in Thiruvananthapuram and his grandfather approached the coaching centre to secure admission for him before the NEET examination.

An advance fee of Rs 5,000 was paid on December 3, 2019, followed by the balance amount of Rs 23,560 on March 18, 2020, taking the total course fee to Rs 28,560.

Background of the Dispute

• Akshay Krishnan was residing in Bahrain with his parents while studying at the Indian School Bahrain.
• Admission for the NEET crash course was secured before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The total course fee of Rs 28,560 was paid between December 2019 and March 2020.
• International flights were suspended after lockdowns were imposed in India and Bahrain. The student never travelled to Thiruvananthapuram to attend the course.
• The family sought a refund claiming no classes or study materials were availed.

The complainants stated that the sudden lockdowns imposed by the governments of India and Bahrain made international travel impossible and prevented the student from reaching Kerala.

They argued that Akshay neither attended any physical classes nor received any study materials from the institute and was therefore entitled to a complete refund of the fee paid.

Coaching centre relied on online classes and no-refund clause

The coaching institute opposed the complaint and argued that the consumer commission lacked jurisdiction because education did not fall within the scope of services under the consumer protection act.

The institute also relied on a clause in the admission form stating that fees once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances, irrespective of later developments.

According to the coaching centre, the crash course was scheduled to commence on March 27, 2020, but nationwide lockdown restrictions announced on March 24, 2020 forced educational institutions to abandon physical classes.

As an alternative, the institute shifted to online classes and informed students that they could continue their preparation through virtual sessions without paying any additional charges.

The institute maintained that Akshay’s family was informed about the online classes and that the student voluntarily chose not to participate despite the availability of the course in digital mode.

Institution claimed expenses had already been incurred

Zephyr further contended that substantial expenditure had already been incurred towards printing study materials, question papers, OMR sheets, assignments and other educational resources.

The coaching centre also claimed that it had invested additional funds in establishing online teaching infrastructure, hiring technical support personnel and continuing classes for several months until the NEET examination.

Another defence raised by the institute was that study materials worth approximately Rs 5,000 had already been supplied to the student after admission.

The complainants disputed this claim and asserted that no study materials had ever been delivered to Akshay in Bahrain or elsewhere.

Commission rejected key defences

After reviewing the evidence and hearing both sides, the commission noted that several facts were undisputed, including the payment of the entire course fee and the inability of the student to travel because of the pandemic.

The commission also observed that the student had not attended any online classes and that the demand for refund arose from circumstances beyond the family’s control.

On the issue of study materials, the commission held that the burden was on the coaching institute to prove delivery once the complainants denied receiving them.

However, no dispatch register, courier records, postal receipts or any other documentary evidence was produced to establish that the materials had actually reached the student.

The commission consequently refused to accept the institute’s claim that study materials worth Rs 5,000 had been supplied.

Consumer rights prevail

The commission held that educational institutions cannot retain the entire fee where education has not effectively been imparted to the student.

It further held that one-sided clauses preventing refunds cannot automatically defeat legitimate claims, particularly where students and parents have little bargaining power at the time of admission.

The commission found that the refusal to refund the fee amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice under consumer law.

Holding the coaching institute jointly and severally liable, the commission directed it to refund Rs 27,560 after retaining only Rs 1,000 from the total fee collected.

The institute was also ordered to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial hardship, along with Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.

Additionally, the refund amount was directed to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from August 20, 2020, the date on which the complaint was filed.

The order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram on May 22, 2026, bringing a six-year-long consumer dispute that began during the pandemic to a close.