| Address: Plot No. 76-D, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001. |
| Website: www.planetspark.in |
I am filing this consumer complaint against Winspark Innovations Learning Private Limited, operating under the brand PlanetSpark, in relation to an online educational programme purchased for my six-year-old son, Vedaansh Sharma (Student ID 2460428).
On 02-August-2026, I paid ₹1, 30, 000 to the Opposite Party through Razorpay (Transaction ID: pay_TKoozL0pEGudKr) for the educational programme.
Before enrolment, the programme structure was specifically explained to us by PlanetSpark's counsellor, Mr. Parth Sikka. We were represented that the child would first be taught a topic in the one-to-one Learn class, that the same topic would then be reinforced/practised in the Practice class, and that subsequently the child's learning would be assessed through a one-to-one Performance/Assessment session.
This representation was an important basis for our decision to enrol and make the payment of ₹1, 30, 000.
However, after commencement of the programme, the actual experience was materially different. Vedaansh completed only one Learn class, which primarily covered self-introduction. In the subsequent Practice class, different topics such as three-letter sentences, nouns and adjectives were introduced instead of meaningfully reinforcing the topic taught in the preceding Learn class.
We also experienced concerns regarding the Practice-class teacher's audibility and engagement. When we informed the teacher that she was not audible, we were asked to rejoin the class. We also observed what appeared to be phone usage during the session. As a result, we left the Practice session after approximately 2–3 minutes.
We immediately raised our concerns with PlanetSpark and subsequently raised a formal support ticket.
During subsequent discussions, a senior member of PlanetSpark's Customer Delight team specifically informed us that the Learn → Practice → Performance structure represented to us at enrolment could not be provided because it was not part of the PlanetSpark curriculum.
However, PlanetSpark subsequently took a contradictory position and stated that our concerns were "very much addressable" and that the learning plan and class structure could be customised according to our expectations.
We therefore requested PlanetSpark to clarify which of these two positions is correct. If the represented programme structure can actually be provided, we requested that it be implemented and clearly reflected on the PlanetSpark LMS. If it cannot be provided, we requested cancellation and refund.
We have also requested PlanetSpark to review the recording of the counselling/enrolment session with Mr. Parth Sikka, if such recording is available in its records, so that the representations made to us before payment can be independently verified.
We do not wish to continue with the programme because the fundamental programme structure represented to us was not consistent with our actual experience.
The payment acknowledgement issued by the Opposite Party records ₹1, 21, 900 as "Fees for Content & Other services on the Platform" and ₹8, 100 as teaching fees, totalling ₹1, 30, 000. I have requested an itemised explanation of the ₹1, 21, 900 component and the specific services/deliverables actually provided against it.
Only one Learn class was completed and the Practice session was discontinued after approximately 2–3 minutes. The complaint was raised at the very beginning of the programme.
Despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter directly with PlanetSpark, the refund/exit issue has not been satisfactorily resolved.
I therefore seek appropriate relief for deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice, as may be determined by this Hon'ble Commission, including refund of the amount paid and appropriate compensation and costs.
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment