Archive · 7 Sep 2026
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders NEET Fee Refund After Student Leaves
A student joined a coaching centre to prepare for the NEET exam.
She paid Rs 82,600 for the course.
Because of serious neck and back pain, she could attend only 12 classes.
Her family asked the centre to return money for the classes she did not attend.
The centre refused, pointing to its no-refund rule.
A consumer commission said the centre could not keep money for services it had not provided.
It ordered the centre to return most of the fee and pay compensation.
The centre had argued that it had already spent the money on study materials and other course expenses.
A Kerala student paid Rs 82,600 for NEET coaching but attended only 12 classes because of recurring neck and back pain.
The Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the institute’s no-refund policy as an unfair trade practice.
The commission ordered the coaching centre to refund Rs 70,600 after deducting Rs 12,000 for attended classes.
It also awarded Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 3,000 in litigation costs, totaling Rs 78,600.
The institute argued that the fee had been spent on study materials, question papers and OMR sheets and denied wrongdoing.
- Who
- A Kerala student and her parents; the coaching institute; and the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The commission ordered a partial refund and compensation after finding that retaining the full coaching fee under a no-refund clause was an unfair trade practice.
- When
- The order was issued on August 18; the student paid the fee on June 17, 2022 and attended classes during 2022.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala.
- Why
- The student discontinued coaching after recurring neck and back pain and later sought a refund for the unused portion of the course.
Student and Consumer Commission
Coaching Institute
Validity of the no-refund clause
Student and Consumer Commission
The student’s family argued that refusing a refund for unused services was an unfair trade practice. The commission said students have little bargaining power over admission-form terms and that providers cannot charge for services not given or availed.
Coaching Institute
The institute relied on its no-refund policy and argued that there was no unfair trade practice.
Use of the paid fee
Student and Consumer Commission
The commission held that the institute should refund the unused portion so the family could potentially use the money for education elsewhere.
Coaching Institute
The institute said the collected fee had already been spent on printing study materials, question papers, OMR sheets and other course-related items.
Reason for discontinuation
Student and Consumer Commission
The family cited the student’s recurring pain and later said she was uncomfortable because of the management’s indifferent attitude.
Coaching Institute
The institute disputed liability and maintained that it had received the student’s admission and provided study materials.
- Original fee
- Rs 82,600
- Classes attended
- 12 classes
- Refund ordered
- Rs 70,600, after deducting Rs 12,000 for attended classes
- Compensation
- Rs 5,000 for mental agony
- Litigation costs
- Rs 3,000
- Total award
- Rs 78,600
- Institute’s argument
- The fee had been spent on study materials, question papers, OMR sheets and related expenses