Vista Mind, the coaching institute which had threatened a Kolkata student with legal consequences for posting a what they termed a defamatory review of the company on the PaGaLGuY forums, today issued a clarification in which they insisted that it wasn’t the overall post they objected to, but only the parts where they had been described as ‘cheats’ and ‘frauds’. The following is the text of their clarification (the grammatical edits are our own).

At VistaMind, we were surprised to see an extremely one side article which misrepresents the issue on a reputed forum like Pagalguy. Firstly, the issue is not about “demystifying product details” as claimed by the article. The issue is one of malicious and damaging claims made by the student. He has accused us of “fraudulent activity” and “Cheating”.

Now let us understand the case.

VistaMind started operations in May 2012 wherein we did not have sufficient time to prepare a mock series on our own. Hence we decided to outsource the same from TestFunda. Career Launcher also offered us 10 mocks, which we could use as a part of our test series package. The package also included analysis and GD and interview training (for calls from top 20 b-schools).

We wanted to offer the package at as low a price as possible, which we did in 5 of the 6 cities that we operated in. In Kolkata, CL asked us not to price it below their package as could affect their test series enrolments (which again is perfectly legitimate). As CL had gives us 10 mocks, we agreed. (But) even in Kolkata, ex-students (from T.I.M.E.) could be offered at the lower price. So the (higher) price was for (non ex-T.I.M.E. students in) Kolkata alone. This was explained to the student who agreed to pay the higher price.

Rebranded TestFunda mocks as VM Mocks with some changes was as per our agreement with TestFunda, which was perfectly legal and valid. However this was explained to students at the time of counseling as can be seen from the many student responses to the article. This particular student claims that he was he not informed. Now it is possible that the counselor at the centre missed out this detail. It is also possible that the student misunderstood or didn’t pay attention.

Hence when the student sought a refund he promptly received a full refund. Now to our surprise he posts again accusing us being ‘cheaters’.

At VistaMind we respect online freedom and believe that a student can express his opinion, satisfaction or dissatisfaction about anything. However to accuse people of Cheating and Fraud is not an opinion. It is a serious criminal allegation. Imagine how you would feel if you or a close family member was called a fraud or cheat online!

We waited for months hoping that the issue would die down, as we have no interest in going legal. However, the post kept showing up in searches for VistaMind with “cheating” tagged. So it is with great reluctance that we sent him a notice. Please note we did not file a case yet. Our intention was to explain to the student the consequences of his actions and get him to remove the derogatory post. VistaMind is the result of the dreams and dedication of some very respected faculty. An attempt to defame us affects not only our reputation but also our business prospects. As one of those who have invested a lifetime savings in this dream venture, it affects my right to livelihood.

This was explained very clearly to the correspondent from PG. Imagine my surprise when the story completely avoids this issue, the main reason why we sent the notice. Even more surprising is that the second post, which contains the derogatory terms, is missing from the story!

We also take strong exception to words like ‘intimidation’ and ‘strong arm tactics’ used in the PG article and in comments. To approach a court of law is the essence of democracy and to call it ‘intimidation’ is to show contempt for the basic laws of our land. I sincerely hope PG doesn’t endorse this view that any person or organization can be vilified and abused online and that they have no right to seek redressal. As a respected portal, which provides valuable service to students, PG should have provided a balanced reporting of the issue rather than try to become prosecutor and Judge. As a wronged party we have a right to seek legal redressal. This is the only civilised way to seek redressal.

The notice mentions loss of business and reputation. To a non-lawyer, let me explain that these are civil matters. This has got nothing to do with the section 66 of the IT act which is draconian and about which we have been outspokenly against. Therefore this case has nothing to do cases involving IT act in the past. If the PG correspondent didn’t understand this difference, she should have sought clarification from us.

Most importantly I would like to sincerely thank all of our students who came out in support of VistaMind. We may not have the big brand name or money that big companies have, but your goodwill is worth more than anything else.

Kolkata student not the only one who asked for a refund

Since publishing the previous article on the issue, we have gotten to know of at least two more students who were sold the Vista Mind test series without being counselled that they contained repackaged TestFunda mocks.

One such student, who did not wish to be named but goes by the handle surprisedeal on PaGaLGuY and had bought the test series from Vista Mind’s Jayanagar center in Bangalore said, “I had mailed the Director telling him that I want my money back as I wasn’t told that these are TF mocks.” Despite getting an email assurance from Ajay Arora, director and CFO of Vista Mind on August 26, 2012 that he would get the refund, it took one more reminder from the student on September 7 and more than three weeks to actually get his money back.

Additionally, Vista Mind’s own hosted forum has complaints such as this one by a third student (ostensibly named Anand Sagar) who writes,

I feel I have made a wrong decision by enrolling for VM test. I was not informed that the testfunda tests will be catered to us in the name of VMMOCKs (I was informed of the CL test, and I am okay with it).

(See screenshot)

All this shows that the Kolkata student’s was not a one-off case, and that there were at least three students who were not informed by Vista Mind’s counselors about the TestFunda mocks.

PaGaLGuY’s response to Vista Mind’s clarification

When our correspondent spoke to Rahul Reddy (the Vista Mind director who signed the letter to the Kolkata student) last week for his response for inclusion in our original story,

1. He was vehement that it was the controversial forum post’s prime position in Google search results that was their biggest concern, because of which they wanted the student to take the post down.

2. Our correspondent categorically denies being ever told by Mr Reddy in that conversation that his only concern was the use of the words ‘cheat’ and ‘fraud’ in the student’s post, and that he was otherwise okay with the rest of the post.

3. In fact, Mr Reddy also stressed during that conversation that the Kolkata student’s was the one and only case among thousands to have asked for a refund. But as it turns out, we now know of at least three students now who were not informed by Vista Mind’s counselors about the TestFunda detail, two of which got the refund. How many more such cases did the company need in order to acknowledge that it was time they made the necessary clarifications on their website? Vista Mind’s response reproduced above is silent on the matter.

One can only speculate whether Vista Mind would have slapped section 66A or a defamation case against the student in the hypothetical eventuality of the matter escalating. Even assuming that they would have chosen the defamation route, are we not aware of cases such as the one two months ago involving IIPM’s associates using defamation laws to get entire webpages blocked in a Gwalior court? It showed that when it comes to the Internet and defamation, our courts can pass as draconian an order as can be. The country today is involved in an intense and as yet unresolved debate about the morality of existing laws as they apply to individuals posting on the Internet, and we did think that this incident fit the bill to be spoken about in that context.

It is worth looking at what available recourses Vista Mind followed before sending the letter. Our previous story had an overwhelming number of supportive comments towards Vista Mind. Why didn’t any of these teachers and supposed students send a single ‘Report Abuse’ request to our moderators to get the objectionable parts of the post edited? Why didn’t any of them post on the controversial thread with similarly positive stream of comments? We at PaGaLGuY get regular calls similarly from parties who want unsubstantiated slander removed, and we mediate for them with users all the time. Why was none of these calls one from Vista Mind? Was skipping all these openly available options and straightaway sending the legal threat to an individual the most civilised form of redressal that occurred to them? Is this not intimidation? We never questioned Vista Mind’s right to send such letters to whoever they want to, but only whether it was right in directly skipping to doing so, knowing that it wasn’t just a one-off case, and without having gotten their own house in order by first revealing the TestFunda detail on their website.

As for the student’s second post, we have added it to the original story and updated the headline, giving benefit of doubt to Vista Mind’s newly clarified motive of sending the letter as obliterating the words ‘cheat’ and ‘fraud’. Though adding the second post does not change the central narrative of why we reported the story.