January 31, 2026 : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that prescribing allopathic medicines without a recognised medical qualification amounts to deficiency in service and negligence by operation of law. Setting aside the orders of the fora below, the Commission awarded ₹2 lakh compensation with interest to a complainant who lost vision in one eye after treatment at an optical centre.
The decision came in Revision Petition No. NC/RP/574/2025, Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre, decided on 30 January 2026 by a Bench comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member).
Background
According to the record, the complainant’s left eye turned red on 9 June 2010. The following day, he visited Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre for treatment. The respondent examined the eye, administered oral medicines and eye drops, prepared a handwritten prescription, and allegedly charged ₹500 as consultation fees.
The condition deteriorated rapidly. On 11 June 2010, the complainant consulted an eye specialist in Bahraich, who diagnosed a severe infection. A second specialist confirmed that the infection had progressed. Eventually, the complainant was admitted to the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre, New Delhi, for advanced treatment. Despite intervention, vision in the left eye was permanently lost. The complainant incurred medical expenses of about ₹2 lakh.
Proceedings Before Consumer Fora
The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that payment of consideration had not been proved, and therefore the complainant was not a “consumer”.
On appeal, the State Commission accepted the complainant’s affidavit as proof of payment but nevertheless dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent, being a diploma holder, could prescribe allopathic medicines. Before the NCDRC, the respondent did not appear and was proceeded ex parte.
NCDRC’s Findings
The Commission found that the District Forum had committed a grave error by dismissing the complaint solely on maintainability without adjudicating the substantive issues, including: Whether the respondent was legally authorised to prescribe allopathic medicines, Whether there was medical negligence or deficiency in service and Whether there was a causal link between the prescription and the loss of vision
The NCDRC agreed with the State Commission that the complainant was indeed a consumer, as proof of payment had been accepted. However, it held that the State Commission erred in concluding that a diploma holder could lawfully prescribe allopathic medicines.
Referring to the statutory scheme under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (now replaced by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019), the Commission observed that only persons possessing recognised medical qualifications and registration are entitled to practise modern medicine.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association (24 January 2023), which clarified that diploma holders or rural health practitioners cannot practise or prescribe allopathic medicines.
The Commission held that prescription of allopathic medicines by a person without recognised qualification and registration is itself illegal and constitutes deficiency in service and negligence per se, irrespective of the treatment outcome.
Relief Granted
Allowing the revision petition, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s order and directed the respondent to: Pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation, Pay simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation and Pay ₹20,000 towards litigation costs.
The ruling reinforces that consumer fora will not legitimise medical practice carried out without statutory authority, and that unauthorised prescription of allopathic drugs amounts to actionable deficiency in service.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre
Case No.: Revision Petition No. NC/RP/574/2025
Coram: Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member), Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member)
