Institute file
Vision IAS
- Registered as
- AjayVision Education Pvt Ltd
- Headquarters
- New Delhi
- Exams
- UPSC Civil Services
The only institute on this site with an adverse record across all six criteria. A ₹11 lakh regulatory penalty for misleading advertising — which CCPA's Chief Commissioner described as the first penalty imposed for a second offence — sits alongside a published policy stating fees are simply not refundable, and a Bhopal centre that students and the Free Press Journal reported shut mid-course without notice.
Section 01
The arithmetic
Every criterion starts at 100. Below is each point deducted, the published rule that triggered it, and the document it came from. Nothing here is a judgement call.
Regulatory Standing
30/100Orders, penalties and findings recorded against the institute by a regulator.
Advertising Integrity
35/100Whether a regulator has found the institute's advertising to be misleading.
Disclosure
40/100Whether the institute discloses what its advertised successful candidates actually paid for.
Refund Policy
10/100How the institute's own published refund policy compares to the national standard.
Service Delivery
25/100Documented failures to deliver the teaching students actually paid for.
Grievance Redressal
30/100Documented conduct when enrolled students raise complaints or ask for refunds.
Overall score is the mean of the 6 assessed criteria, rounded. Read the full methodology →
Section 02
The public record
Each document below is linked to its source. This is the entire evidentiary basis for the grade above — there is nothing else behind it.
- 01Regulatory order25 December 2025
CCPA imposes ₹11 lakh penalty for misleading advertisements
The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalised AjayVision Education Pvt Ltd over advertisements claiming "7 in Top 10 & 79 in Top 100 selections in CSE 2023" and "39 in Top 50 selections in CSE 2022". The Authority found the institute had concealed which courses the advertised candidates actually enrolled in: of 119-plus successful candidates claimed across 2022 and 2023, only 3 had taken foundation courses — the remaining 116 had bought only test series or mock interview services. CCPA Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare described it as the first case of a penalty imposed for a second offence.
Points this document deducted (7)
- standing — Confirmed regulatory penalty order on record-35
- standing — Regulator recorded a repeat or subsequent contravention-25
- standing — Penalty of ₹10 lakh or more-10
- ads — Regulator found the advertisement misleading-40
- ads — Regulator found concealment of material information-25
- disclosure — Advertised success attributed to candidates who did not take the advertised paid course-40
- disclosure — That proportion exceeds half of the advertised candidates-20
- 02Service delivery16 July 2026
Bhopal centre reported shut mid-course without notice
As reported by the Free Press Journal on 16 July 2026, and according to the students who filed the police complaint: students enrolled in the offline UPSC programme at the Bhopal centre were told on 1 July that the centre was closing briefly for electrical maintenance and classes would resume on 7 July. They returned to find a 'To-Let' board on the building. More than 50 students in a single batch had paid roughly ₹1.5 lakh each — about ₹75 lakh across the batch — and reported receiving approximately 14 days of offline teaching since January. The institute stopped responding to calls, then offered either online-only classes or a partial refund with a 25% deduction described as maintenance charges. Students filed a written complaint at Govindpura police station seeking resumption of classes or a full refund. The building owner, Kamlesh Tiwari, said the institute vacated after failing to clear dues of ₹40–45 lakh in rent since January, about ₹4.5 lakh in electricity and ₹1–1.5 lakh in water charges. A faculty member, Anubhav Sharma, said the centre was temporarily closed and expected to reopen, without giving specifics; management did not respond to repeated contact attempts.
SourcesFree Press Journal ↗Points this document deducted (5)
- delivery — Centre closure or course discontinuation mid-term, documented-50
- delivery — Documented shortfall against the contracted teaching-25
- grievance — Documented non-response to enrolled students' complaints-30
- grievance — Refund offered below the pro-rata standard-20
- grievance — Police complaint or consumer case filed by enrolled students, on record-20
- 03Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026
Published refund policy states fees are not refundable
The institute's own published Refund and Cancellation Policy states that once enrolled, it "shall not refund the money", and that funds cannot be transferred to another student. Where a course change is permitted, a minimum 25% administrative deduction applies and the balance is retained as credit toward another Vision IAS course rather than returned. No refund timeline is stated for course fees. The Ministry of Education's January 2024 guidelines require a pro-rata refund within 10 days when a student leaves mid-course.
Points this document deducted (3)
- refund — Published policy states fees are non-refundable-60
- refund — Published deduction on exit or course change exceeds 10% of fees-20
- refund — No refund timeline stated in the published policy-10
Section 03
Their policy vs the national standard
What Vision IAS publishes
“Once enrolled for any course/class/material with Vision IAS, Vision IAS shall not refund the money.”
The published policy also applies a minimum 25% administrative deduction when a student changes course, with the balance retained as credit toward another Vision IAS course rather than returned.
Read their policy ↗Retrieved 2026-07-28
What the national standard says
Where a student has paid the fee in full and leaves the course in the middle of the prescribed period, the fee for the remaining period is to be refunded on a pro-rata basis within 10 days — including hostel and mess fees, where those were paid.
Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centres, 2024, Ministry of Education, Government of India, January 2024. Summarised from the guidelines rather than quoted verbatim. Source ↗
These are national guidelines that states are asked to adopt; they are not by themselves a penal statute. The enforceable route for an individual student is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — deficiency in service and unfair trade practice — through the National Consumer Helpline and the Consumer Commissions.
Student reports
Report count unavailable
We could not read the report count just now, so we are not showing a number rather than showing one we have not verified. The grade above is unaffected — it comes entirely from the documents on this page.
File your reportRight of reply
This space is reserved for Vision IAS
Nothing has been published here yet, and no inference should be drawn from that — this file is built from public documents and we have not asked the institute for comment. If you represent this institute and believe anything above is inaccurate, write to corrections@coachingreportcard.com. We correct errors promptly and publish any reply in full, unedited, in this space.