The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed an eye optical centre in Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹2 lakh compensation to a patient who permanently lost vision in his left eye after being treated by a person not qualified to prescribe allopathic medicines. The Commission held that such practice amounts to deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law.
The Bench comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member) set aside the State Commission’s order and partly allowed the revision petition. The Commission directed payment of ₹2 lakh compensation with 9% annual interest from the date of filing the complaint till realisation, along with ₹20,000 towards litigation costs.
The case dates back to June 2010 when the complainant noticed redness in his left eye and visited an eye health and optical centre in Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh. He alleged that he was administered oral medicines and eye drops and was given a handwritten prescription after paying ₹500 in cash for consultation and treatment.
According to the complainant, his condition worsened after taking the prescribed medicines, leading to severe infection. He later consulted specialists in Bahraich who reportedly diagnosed that the infection was caused by the earlier prescription. Despite further treatment, including admission at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre in New Delhi, he permanently lost vision in his left eye and claimed medical expenses of around ₹2 lakh.
The patient filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrawasti, seeking compensation of ₹5 lakh and reimbursement of medical expenses. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint in 2017, holding that although the opposite party lacked medical qualification, the complainant failed to prove payment and thus was not a “consumer” under the Act.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, upheld the District Forum’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the NCDRC by filing a revision petition under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, arguing that both lower forums failed to examine the case on merits.
The NCDRC observed that once the consumer relationship and deficiency in service were established, the District Forum ought to have decided the matter on merits instead of directing the complainant to approach a civil court. It further noted that the State Commission erred in holding that a diploma holder was authorised to prescribe allopathic medicines.
Referring to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act (now replaced by the National Medical Commission Act) and the Supreme Court judgment in Baharul Islam & Ors. v. Indian Medical Association & Ors., the Commission held that only persons with recognised medical qualifications and proper registration are entitled to practise and prescribe allopathic medicines. It concluded that prescribing such medicines without legal authority constitutes negligence in law, making the eye centre liable for compensation.
