The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether education is a service within the Consumer Protection Act, in response to an appeal from a bereaved father who has held a school responsible for his son’s death.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna noted that a similar legal issue was pending adjudication in another case and tagged the matter along with it.

“Having regard to the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 3504 of 2020 (Manu Solanki and Others vs Vinayaka Mission University), the issue as to whether education is a service within the Consumer Protection Act is pending before this court. Leave granted. Tag with civil appeal,” the bench said in its October 29 order.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by a Lucknow resident challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had said educational institutions did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and education, which includes co-curricular activities such as swimming, was not a “service” within the meaning of the legislation.

The man’s son was studying at a school that offered various summer camp activities in 2007, including swimming, and invited students to participate by paying Rs 1,000.

On May 28, 2007, around 9.30am, the petitioner received an urgent call from the school requesting him to come immediately as his son was unwell.

Upon reaching the school, the man was informed that his son had been taken to hospital as he had drowned in the swimming pool. He rushed to the hospital where he learnt that his son had died. He filed a complaint with the state consumer panel alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the school and claimed Rs 20 lakh as compensation for the death of his son as well as Rs 2 lakh on account of the mental agony suffered by him and Rs 55,000 towards the cost of litigation.

The state commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer. The order was challenged in the NCDRC, which held that education that included co-curricular activities such as swimming was not a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.