The findings
Every document behind a grade.
Every line below is a government order, a court or regulator finding, or an institution’s own published terms — retrieved on a date, linked to its source, and tied to the points it moved on that institution’s report card. 32 on file today.
- 32
- Documents on file
- 12
- Institutions covered
- 0
- Reports published
- Free
- To add yours
Two different things
Findings are documents. They are public, sourced, and they move scores. Reportsare what students and parents send us. They are reviewed by a person, counted on the institution's page — none are published yet — and they never move a score. Nothing anyone sends is published as a claim about a named institution without review.
No CCPA penalty, misleading-ad finding or success-disclosure order found
We checked the CCPA orders index, coaching-sector enforcement summaries and targeted public web searches for Sarrthi IAS. No penalty order, misleading-ad finding or successful-candidate disclosure order was found in those public sources. Absence of a public record is not proof that no issue exists; it is recorded here only for the criteria checked.
Regulator recordChecked 30 July 2026Published policy states online and digital courses are generally non-refundable
Sarrthi IAS publishes a strict no-refund policy for online and digital courses, with limited exceptions for duplicate payments or non-provision of a course.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026-60 pointsNo public penalty, misleading-ad order, delivery case or grievance case found
We checked the CCPA orders index, coaching-sector enforcement summaries, the institute's own public pages and targeted public web searches for Understand UPSC / USARAMBHA EDUCATION. No penalty order, misleading-ad finding, success-disclosure order, documented delivery case or documented grievance case was found in those public sources. Absence of a public record is not proof that no issue exists; it is recorded here only for the criteria checked.
Regulator recordChecked 30 July 2026Published policy says enrolled students are not refunded and course changes carry at least 25% deduction
Understand UPSC's cancellation policy says enrolled students will not be refunded or transferred, and that course-change cases may be approved only with a minimum 25% administrative deduction.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026-80 pointsStudent portal says refund requests must be submitted in person
The student portal refund page says refund requests must be submitted in person, with no online, phone or remote processing accepted. This evidence is listed for context and carries no additional deduction.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026Course brochure says the institute does not have a refund policy
StudyIQ's published offline course brochure states that the institute does not have a refund policy, except for discretionary medical-ground or personal-tragedy cases.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026-60 pointsOnline subscriptions are published as non-refundable
Unacademy's online refund policy states that once a learner subscribes and makes the required payment, cancellation changes and refunds are not available.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026-60 pointsOffline UPSC refund window closes within seven days of batch start
The UPSC offline refund policy allows an 80% refund only within the earlier of seven days from batch commencement or fourteen days from purchase, and records no refund after that window.
Published policyRetrieved 30 July 2026-50 pointsPublished terms: five-day refund window, faculty described as tentative
The published Terms and Conditions allow a refund only within five days of the batch commencing, after which no refund is available. Separately, the terms describe the names of advertised faculty as tentative and reserve the right to change faculty and venue without prior notice — meaning the teacher a student chose the course for can be replaced with no recourse.
Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026-60 pointsNo CCPA penalty and no CCPA notice found
We searched CCPA and PIB announcements and the press reporting on coaching-sector enforcement from 2023 to 2026 and found no penalty against ForumIAS, and no notice either. It does not appear in the lists of institutes issued notices in October 2023 or in any subsequent penalty round. Absence of a record is not proof of good conduct, but it is what the record shows.
Regulator recordChecked 28 July 2026Publishes each advertised candidate's rank, year and the course they actually took
ForumIAS maintains a public results page that names successful candidates alongside their rank, the year, and the specific programme each of them enrolled in. This is precisely the disclosure whose absence CCPA has repeatedly penalised other institutes for — where a student can see that an advertised topper took a free interview programme rather than the expensive foundation course, the claim stops being misleading.
Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026Published policy: courses non-refundable except on proven deficiency of service
The published refund policy states that courses are non-refundable and non-transferable, with a refund considered only where the student proves a deficiency of service. Because an ordinary course exit retains the full fee, the policy is treated as a deduction above the 10% threshold. Placing the burden of proof on the student falls short of the Ministry of Education's January 2024 standard, which requires a pro-rata refund within 10 days on mid-course exit regardless of fault.
Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026-80 pointsPublished policy: no refund at all on online courses
The published Cancellation and Refund Policy provides zero refund for online courses, and for classroom admissions applies a sliding deduction that reaches no refund at all after one month. The Ministry of Education's January 2024 guidelines require a pro-rata refund within 10 days whenever a student who has paid in full leaves mid-course, with no one-month cut-off.
Published policyPolicy dated 4 August 2022; retrieved 28 July 2026-80 pointsPublished terms: blanket no-refund, faculty substitutable, dead cancellation page
The institute's published Terms & Conditions state that no refund is made where the student cancels, and separately reserve the right to substitute the faculty at any time with no notice to the student — a term that undercuts the advertised faculty a student is choosing between. The cancellation-policy URL cited within those same Terms returns a page that does not exist.
Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026-105 pointsPublished 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.
Published policyRetrieved 28 July 2026-90 pointsPublished policy: no refund on any course, 25% minimum deduction to change
The published refund policy states that fees for classroom, hybrid and live-online courses are non-refundable, and applies a minimum 25% deduction even where a student is permitted to change course. The Ministry of Education's January 2024 guidelines require a pro-rata refund within 10 days where a student leaves mid-course.
Published policyPolicy effective 4 June 2026; retrieved 28 July 2026-80 pointsBhopal 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.
Course delivery16 July 2026-145 pointsCCPA imposes ₹7 lakh penalty for misleading UPSC result claims
The Central Consumer Protection Authority passed a final order against Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP, imposing a penalty of ₹7,00,000 for indulging in misleading advertisement through deliberate concealment of material information, in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Authority — headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare with Commissioner Anupam Mishra — found the institute had made tall claims and prominently used the names, photographs and achievements of successful UPSC CSE 2023 candidates while concealing which specific courses those candidates had actually taken. The advertisements on its own website claimed "8 Rank Holders in the Top 10 are from Vajiram & Ravi", "37 Rank Holders in the Top 50 are from Vajiram & Ravi", and that more than 30% of officers selected through the examination every year were its students. Of 413 successful candidates the institute claimed for CSE 2023, CCPA found 258 had enrolled only in its free Interview Guidance Programme — a programme offered after a candidate has already cleared Prelims and Mains without the institute's paid help. The penalty was to be deposited within 15 days. CCPA stated that non-disclosure of course details deprives consumers of the ability to make an informed choice.
Regulator record29 May 2026-160 pointsConsumer commission ordered refund after bilingual course was supplied only in English
A Times of India report records that the Noida consumer commission ordered Study IQ IAS to refund a student after a bilingual course was supplied only in English and the student's requests were not resolved.
Course deliveryReported 17 April 2026-75 pointsCCPA imposes ₹11 lakh penalty for misleading advertisements
In Case No. CCPA-2/30/2024-CCPA, the Central Consumer Protection Authority — Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare with Commissioner Anupam Mishra — directed Vision IAS (AjayVision Education Private Limited) to pay a penalty of ₹11,00,000 for a subsequent contravention in respect of misleading advertising on its own website, to desist from further such publication, and to file a compliance report within 15 days. The claims held misleading were "7 in Top 10 & 79 in Top 100 SELECTIONS IN CSE 2023" and "39 in Top 50 SELECTIONS IN CSE 2022", displayed with the names, photographs and ranks of successful candidates. The Authority found the institute disclosed the course taken by one advertised topper but concealed the courses taken by the others, creating the impression that all were GS Foundation classroom students: of the 119-plus candidates claimed for CSE 2022 and 2023, only 3 had taken foundation courses, while 116 had opted for test series, one-time mock tests or mock interviews. CCPA also found the institute could not produce consent forms authorising use of those candidates' names and photographs, and rejected its "limited creative space" defence as factually incorrect and unacceptable. Violations were recorded under sections 2(28)(i), (iii) and (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and penalised under section 21(2). PIB announced the order on 25 December 2025.
Regulator recordOrder dated 18 December 2025-195 pointsCCPA imposes ₹5 lakh penalty over UPSC CSE 2022 result claims
The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalised the institute over an advertisement claiming 216-plus successful candidates in UPSC CSE 2022. The Authority found that 162 of the 216 candidates — about 75% — had cleared the Preliminary and Main examinations without assistance from the institute and had taken only its free Interview Guidance Programme, information the advertisement did not disclose. The institute had earlier been penalised ₹3 lakh in 2024 over claims of 150-plus selections in UPSC 2021.
Regulator recordReported October 2025-185 pointsEarlier CCPA penalty of ₹3 lakh over a UPSC CSE 2020 result advertisement
CCPA imposed a penalty of ₹3,00,000 over the advertised claim "10 in Top 10 selections in CSE 2020 from various programs of Vision IAS". The Authority found the institute named the course taken by the CSE 2020 topper — GS Foundation Batch Classroom Student — but concealed the courses chosen by the other nine advertised candidates. Of those nine, one had taken a foundation course, six had taken Prelims or Mains test series, and two had taken only the Abhyaas one-time test. CCPA recorded from fee receipts that the foundation course cost ₹1,40,000 while the Abhyaas one-time prelims mock test cost ₹750. IMPORTANT: the December 2025 order records that Vision IAS has challenged this January 2025 order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This penalty is therefore under appeal and is not final. We have not established the outcome of that appeal.
Regulator recordOrder dated 22 January 2025 — under appealCCPA imposes ₹7 lakh penalty for misleading UPSC CSE 2023 advertising
CCPA found that StudyIQ IAS advertised UPSC CSE 2023 selections and “Success/Selection Pakka” claims without clearly disclosing the specific courses taken by the successful candidates. The official release records that most named candidates were linked to interview guidance or limited programmes rather than the advertised foundation course.
Regulator recordOrder dated 23 December 2024-160 pointsCCPA imposes ₹2 lakh penalty for misleading UPSC CSE 2023 advertising
The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalised the institute ₹2,00,000 over its advertising of UPSC CSE 2023 results. Beyond the advertising itself, the Authority found that the 'Shubhra Ranjan IAS' branding amounted to a misrepresentation and an unfair trade practice.
Regulator record22 December 2024-105 pointsCCPA imposes ₹3 lakh penalty for misleading advertising
CCPA imposed a penalty of ₹3,00,000 on Plutus IAS as part of its action against misleading advertising in the coaching sector, announced on 13 November 2024 with the institute-by-institute breakdown published the following day. This is separate from, and later than, the October 2023 notice recorded below.
Regulator recordAnnounced 13 November 2024-75 pointsLost Current Affairs faculty mid-course — disclosed it and offered an unconditional full refund
ForumIAS disclosed to its Current Affairs 2025 batch that it had lost the faculty for that course mid-way, and offered every affected student an unconditional 100% refund. The delivery deduction records the mid-course disruption itself; no grievance deduction is applied because the institute disclosed the problem and offered a full refund.
Course delivery4 September 2024-50 pointsMade Easy Learnings challenged the CCPA notices in the Delhi High Court
Made Easy Learnings Pvt Ltd, which operates NEXT IAS, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the CCPA notices. The writ was disposed of and the matter remitted to the regulator. This is the institute exercising a legal right, not a finding against it, and it deducts nothing.
Press recordOrder dated 3 September 2024Basement classrooms sealed by the MCD; Mukherjee Nagar centre closed and relocated
During the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's enforcement drive that followed the Rau's IAS basement deaths, MCD sealed basement classrooms operated by Drishti IAS for building-norm violations. The Mukherjee Nagar centre was subsequently closed and classes suspended before restarting at Karol Bagh and Noida — a mid-course relocation for enrolled students who had chosen a centre.
Course delivery29–30 July 2024-50 pointsCCPA imposes ₹5 lakh penalty for misleading advertisement
The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalised the institute for concealing information about the courses taken by the successful candidates featured in its advertising. Of 682 candidates showcased, 674 had enrolled only in a free mock interview programme; just 8 had taken additional paid courses.
Regulator recordReported 2024-160 pointsCCPA notice over UPSC result advertising — no penalty found
NEXT IAS was among the institutes issued a CCPA notice over misleading UPSC result advertising. We searched specifically for a penalty order against NEXT IAS or Made Easy Learnings across 2023 to 2026 and found none. A notice is not a penalty and carries no finding of wrongdoing, so it deducts nothing here — it is recorded for completeness, and to correct the common reporting error of treating a notice as a fine.
Regulator recordReported 30 October 2023CCPA notice issued in the October 2023 round — a notice, not a penalty
Plutus IAS was one of the institutes issued a CCPA notice in the October 2023 action against IAS coaching centres. A notice is not a penalty and carries no finding of wrongdoing, so it deducts nothing here. It is recorded only because the sequence matters: the penalty above came later and separately.
Regulator recordReported 30 October 2023CCPA order records misleading UPSC success claims and a ₹1 lakh penalty
The CCPA order records claims such as “26% of all UPSC rankers are Unacademy learners” and “178+ achievers out of 685”, and finds that material course information about the successful candidates was not disclosed. A later press report says NCDRC stayed the fine; no final setting-aside order is on file here, so the regulatory findings are listed with that caveat.
Regulator recordOrder dated 23 October 2023; stay reported 30 January 2024-160 points
Know something students should know?
Your experience could help someone make one of the biggest decisions of their life. Two minutes, no account, no fee — and you leave with a legal notice for the institution and a complaint addressed to the office that handles it.