NCDRC Orders Compensation for Vision Loss Due to Unauthorized Prescription

Background of the Case

In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has determined that prescribing allopathic medications without a recognized medical qualification constitutes a deficiency in service. This decision follows the case of a patient who permanently lost vision after receiving treatment at an eye optical center in Uttar Pradesh. The NCDRC has mandated a compensation of Rs 2 lakh for the patient.

Details of the Ruling

The NCDRC ruled that “the act of prescribing allopathic medicines by a person not possessed of a recognized medical qualification and not registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, constitutes deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law, irrespective of the outcome of such prescription.” The commission’s decision was made by a panel that included Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member). They overturned the State Commission’s order and partially granted the complainant’s revision petition, ordering the eye center to pay Rs 2,00,000 in compensation along with 9% annual interest from the date of the original complaint until realization, in addition to Rs 20,000 for litigation costs.

Timeline of Events

The events leading to the complaint date back to June 9, 2010, when the complainant noticed redness in his left eye. The following day, he sought treatment at the Eye Health and Optical Centre in Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh. After an examination, he was given oral medications and eye drops, along with a handwritten prescription, and charged Rs 500 for the consultation.

However, the patient’s condition deteriorated after using the prescribed medications, leading to a severe infection in his left eye. He subsequently consulted an eye specialist, Dr. Mishra, on June 11, 2010, who diagnosed the infection as a result of the earlier medications. A follow-up with Dr. Lal on June 19 confirmed that the eye was completely infected. Unable to control the infection, the complainant was admitted to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre in New Delhi on July 10, 2010, where he ultimately lost vision in his left eye. The complainant reported incurring medical expenses of approximately Rs 2 lakh.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

In response to the alleged negligence, the patient filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Shrawasti. He sought Rs 5,00,000 in compensation, Rs 2,00,000 for medical expenses, and additional costs.

Defense of the Eye Center

The eye center’s counsel admitted to the patient’s visit on June 10, 2010, and confirmed that a prescription was issued. However, they refuted other allegations, claiming that the complainant had approached them for spectacles and was advised corrective glasses instead. The respondent maintained that the prescribed medications were pain relievers that could not have caused harm and argued that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, asserting that the complaint was filed with malicious intent.

District Forum’s Decision

On January 31, 2017, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the opposition party lacked the medical qualification to prescribe allopathic medicines. However, it noted that the complainant failed to prove payment and, thus, was not recognized as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Forum advised the complainant to seek remedies through a competent court under other laws.

Appeal to the State Commission

Dissatisfied with the District Forum’s ruling, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lucknow. The State Commission upheld the District Forum’s decision, asserting that the appeal lacked merit.

Revision Petition to NCDRC

Challenging the previous rulings, the complainant filed a revision petition with the NCDRC, arguing that both prior forums failed to adequately assess the merits of the case. He emphasized that the eye center had examined him, applied medication, issued a handwritten prescription, and charged a consultation fee, thus establishing a consumer relationship.

NCDRC’s Findings and Conclusions

The NCDRC criticized the District Forum for not addressing key issues, such as the legality of the prescription and medical negligence. The commission reiterated that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, only individuals with recognized medical qualifications are authorized to practice medicine and prescribe allopathic medications.

The NCDRC concluded that even if the respondent had a diploma in optometry, it did not provide the legal authority to prescribe allopathic medicines. Therefore, the act of prescription constituted a deficiency in service and negligence, resulting in direct injury to the complainant.

As a result, the NCDRC granted the revision petition, overturning the State Commission’s order and directing the eye center to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation, along with 9% interest and Rs 20,000 for litigation costs.

Further Information

To view the complete order, please click on the following link: [NCDRC Vision Loss Order](https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/02/19/ncdrc-vision-loss-328469.pdf).

Additionally, the NCDRC’s decision aligns with previous rulings involving medical negligence, as seen in other recent cases.