High Court's Firm Stance: NRI Medical Student Loses Multi-Lakh Fee Refund Battle

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has sided with RajaRajeswari Medical College & Hospital, dismissing a petition from an NRI quota medical student who sought a substantial fee refund after withdrawing from her course. The decision, handed down by Justice Ashok S Kinagi, underscores the strict adherence to admission regulations, particularly for high-demand professional courses.

The saga began when the student secured a coveted medical seat at RajaRajeswari Medical College & Hospital under the NRI quota.

Her annual fee amounted to a hefty Rs 20 lakh, alongside an additional Rs 10,000 in miscellaneous charges. However, her time at the institution was short-lived. Prior to the stipulated cutoff date, the student made the decision to vacate her NRI quota seat, opting instead to join a government medical college – a common aspiration for many aspiring doctors.

Following her withdrawal, the student demanded a full refund of her Rs 20.10 lakh fee.

The college, however, stood its ground, citing the clear directives of the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA). According to KEA rules, fees paid for NRI quota or private seats are non-refundable if a student vacates the seat after admission. This rule is designed to prevent casual applications and ensure that valuable seats do not go to waste, denying opportunities to other deserving candidates.

Undeterred, the student took her plea to the High Court, arguing that the college had not suffered any financial loss as the seat she vacated was subsequently filled by another student.

She contended that retaining her fees would amount to unjust enrichment for the institution. However, the High Court found this argument unconvincing.

Justice Kinagi, in his judgment, firmly rejected the student’s petition. He highlighted that the student, being a major, was expected to be fully aware of the admission rules and regulations governing NRI quota seats before accepting admission.

The court stated that allowing such refunds would not only cause significant financial distress to educational institutions but could also lead to seats remaining vacant, a scenario detrimental to the larger public interest.

The court further scrutinized the student's claim regarding the vacant seat.

It observed that there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the seat was filled under the exact same NRI quota immediately after her withdrawal, or that the college had received double fees for the same seat under the same category. The onus, the court implied, was on the student to demonstrate actual financial gain by the college from her specific vacated seat.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for all prospective students and their guardians about the gravity of commitments made during the admission process, especially for specialized and competitive fields like medicine.

It reinforces the principle that admission rules are in place not just for administrative order but also to ensure fairness, prevent misuse of the system, and protect the financial stability of educational institutions.