Case Law:
Rakesh Kumar Shukla V Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre(NC)
Decided on 30.01.2026.
Head Note
“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.”
Facts of the case:
- Rakesh Kumar Shukla states, he visited Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre on 10.06.2010 for treatment of his eye. The doctor administered oral medicines and eye drops, prepared a treatment prescription in his own handwriting, and received Rs.500/- in cash as payment for the consultation and treatment. His left eye worsened progressively, developing a severe infection and deteriorating further. On 11.06.2010, he went to Bahraich and consulted eye specialist Dr. A.K. Mishra, who diagnosed that the eye had become highly infected as a direct result of the medicines prescribed by the doctor .
- On 19.06.2010, the petitioner sought a second opinion from eye specialist Dr. Kishan Lal, who confirmed that the eye was completely infected. The infection could not be controlled and on 10.07.2010, he was admitted to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre in New Delhi for advanced treatment. Regrettably, the vision in his left eye was lost permanently
- He filed the present consumer complaint bearing no 09/2011 titled as Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla V. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre. under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrawasti and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for medical treatment and annual interest of 10% on the amount from 10.06.2010 until full recovery, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- , litigation coast of Rs.5,000/-
Reply by Opposite Party
- The OP has replied that he prescribed three tablets for the complainant , namely Tab-Raxly-150mg, Tab-Nimsin-P, and Tab-Aquasal, along with three injections comprising Dexamethasone, Diclofenac, and Ceftazidime, all of which are pain relievers. The use of these medications could not have caused any harm to the eye.
- The respondent also refuted as false and baseless statement made by the petitioner that eye specialists, namely Dr. A.K. Mishra of Divya Drishti Eye Hospital, Dr. Kishan Lal of Delhi, and the eye specialists at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences in New Delhi, had informed the complainant that his eye became infected due to medical negligence or incorrect medication
- He further states that the loss of vision in the left eye has not occurred as a result of the intake of medicines prescribed by him, and he has not committed any medical negligence whatsoever.
- He further contended that he neither charged any fee from the petitioner nor sold any medicine to him. Consequently, hence does not fall within the category of a consumer, and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable
- Complaint is filed with malicious intent on the basis of imaginary and baseless facts, and the same deserves to be dismissed in its entirety.
District forum Observed
Though the Opposite Party did not have any medical certificate to prescribe allopathic medicines, nor was he authorized to prescribe allopathic medicines as a medical officer. Despite this, the Opposite Party has prescribed allopathic medicines to the Complainant. But in this case, it is not proved that the Complainant paid any consideration to the Opposite Party for receiving the services of the opposite party, in such a situation, the Complainant is not found to be a consumer under section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complaint given by the Complainant is not considered to be covered under the definition of the word ‘service’ given under section 2 (i) (o) of the said Act. Therefore, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not found to be maintainable. However, the Complainant can take legal action in the competent court or under any other law against the Opposite Party to obtain the desired relief in the said regard.
State commission held ;
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla V. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 31.05.2017 upheld the order dated 03.10.2024 by the District Forum.
National Commission
Aggrieved complainant filed the present Revision Petition titled Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla V. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre as under section 21(1) (b) of the Act 1986 to challenge the impugned order
National Commission HELD
- The law governing modern medicine and allopathy is occupied by Central legislation, namely the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, now succeeded by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and the right to practise and prescribe is traceable only to a recognised medical qualification and registration as contemplated under the Central law. Section 15(1) and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, expressly prohibit any person from practising or prescribing medicine unless he possesses a recognised medical qualification and is duly registered in the State Medical Register.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of diploma holders and rural health practitioners and the interplay of State action vis-àvis Central law, in Baharul Islam & Ors. v. Indian Medical Association & Ors., decided on 24th January 2023, has held that in the field of medical education, qualification and standards is substantially occupied by Central legislation, and diploma holders or rural health practitioners are not entitled to practice or prescribe allopathic medicine. This binding declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no room for the interpretation adopted by the State Commission.
- In the facts of the present case, even assuming without admitting that the Respondent possesses some diploma in optometry or allied field, the same does not confer any statutory authority to prescribe allopathic medicines. Therefore, the act of prescription itself constitutes deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law, and the injury caused to the petitioner is a direct consequence of such illegal practice.
- The District Forum committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint on the preliminary ground of maintainability, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove payment of consultation fee and was therefore not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The District Forum abdicated its statutory duty to adjudicate upon the core determinative issues of prescription by an unqualified person, the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service and the loss of vision suffered by the petitioner
- The State Commission, in appeal, accepted the affidavit of the petitioner regarding payment of Rs.500/- as proof of payment and thereby effectively accepted that the petitioner was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings of the State Commission. We are in agreement that the petitioner was a ‘consumer’ and the respondent was a ‘service provider’.
- The State Commission however observed that the respondent, being a diploma holder, could lawfully prescribe allopathic medicines which was not sustainable in law, being contrary to binding statutory provisions, contrary to Central legislation governing the field of medical practice, and contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- 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. In the present case, the injury caused to the petitioner is alleged to be a direct consequence of such illegal practice
- The revision petition is allowed. After considering the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner would be appropriate for the injuries caused to him by the negligence act of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complainant till realization besides litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. Pending application(s) if any also stand disposed of.
Concluding ,we may consider SC Ruling as final verdict that “A person not possessed of a recognized medical qualification and not registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, are not entitled to practice or prescribe allopathic medicine”
By Dr Prem Lata
