Prescribing Allopathic Medicines Without Qualification Is Deficiency In Service: NCDRC Awards ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Vision Loss
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member), has held that prescribing allopathic medicines without recognised medical qualification amounts to deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law. The Commission set aside the orders of the fora below and directed...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member), has held that prescribing allopathic medicines without recognised medical qualification amounts to deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law. The Commission set aside the orders of the fora below and directed payment of ₹2 lakh compensation to the complainant who lost vision in one eye following treatment by an optical centre.
The Commission also held that dismissal of a consumer complaint solely on the ground that consultation fee was not proved is erroneous once the consumer–service provider relationship is established.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, Rakesh Kumar Shukla, developed redness in his left eye on 9 June 2010 and visited Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre the following day. According to him, the opposite party examined the eye, administered medicines, issued a handwritten prescription, and received ₹500 as consultation charges.
His condition allegedly worsened, leading to severe infection. He subsequently consulted eye specialists in Bahraich and Delhi and was later admitted to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre, New Delhi, where he permanently lost vision in his left eye. He incurred medical expenses of about ₹2 lakh.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrawasti, seeking compensation for medical expenses, damages, and litigation costs.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that payment of consideration was not proved and therefore the complainant was not a consumer. The State Commission upheld the dismissal. Aggrieved, he filed a revision petition before the NCDRC. The respondent remained ex parte before the National Commission.
Observations and Decision of the Commission
The NCDRC held that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint solely on maintainability without adjudicating the substantive issues of medical negligence, deficiency in service, and legality of prescribing allopathic medicines.
The Commission noted that once the complainant was accepted as a consumer, the complaint ought to have been decided on merits. It further held that the State Commission erred in upholding the dismissal despite accepting proof of payment.
On the legality of treatment, the Commission observed that the field of modern medicine is governed by central legislation, namely the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (now succeeded by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019), which permits practice and prescription only by persons possessing recognised medical qualifications and registration.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association (2023), the Commission held that diploma holders or persons without recognised medical qualifications cannot prescribe allopathic medicines. Therefore, prescribing such medicines without statutory authority itself constitutes deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law.
Accordingly, the Commission set aside the impugned order, allowed the revision petition, and directed the respondent to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint, along with ₹20,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre
Advocate for the Petitioner ( complainant ) : Zaryab Jamal Rizvi
Case No.: Revision Petition No. NC/RP/574/2025