Prescribing allopathic medicines without recognised medical qualification is negligence- Consumer Court slaps compensation for vision loss

New Delhi: Holding that prescribing allopathic medicines without having a recognised medical qualification amounts to a deficiency in service, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Rs 2 lakh compensation to a patient who permanently lost vision after treatment at an eye optical centre in Uttar Pradesh.

"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 NCDRC observed.

The apex consumer court comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member) set aside the order of the State Commission and partly allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant, directing the eye centre to pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation along with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, and Rs 20,000 towards litigation costs.

The case dates back 16 years, when the complainant noticed that on 09.06.2010, his left eye turned red. The next day, he visited Eye Health and Optical Centre at Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. According to him, after examination, he was administered oral medicines and eye drops, prepared a handwritten prescription and charged Rs 500 in cash for consultation and treatment.

However, the complainant alleged that his condition worsened after taking the prescribed medicines. He developed a severe infection in the left eye. On 11.06.2010, he consulted Dr. Mishra, an eye specialist at Bahraich, who reportedly diagnosed that the infection had developed due to the medicines prescribed earlier. On 19.06.2010, he sought a second opinion from Dr. Lal, who confirmed that the eye was completely infected.

As the infection could not be controlled, he was admitted to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre in New Delhi on 10.07.2010 for advanced treatment. Despite treatment, he permanently lost vision in his left eye. He claimed to have spent around Rs 2 lakh on medical expenses.

Consequently, aggrieved by the alleged negligence, the patient filed Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrawasti.

In the complaint, he sought Rs 5,00,000 as compensation, Rs 2,00,000 towards medical expenses, interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 10.06.2010 till full payment, Rs 1,00,000 as additional compensation, and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Opposition Party Stand

The counsel on behald eye centre, in his reply before the District Forum, admitted that the complainant had visited him on 10.06.2010 and that he examined the eye and issued a prescription. However, he denied all other allegations as false and baseless.

He stated that the patient had visited his shop around 6:00 PM on 10.06.2010 to get spectacles made. On examination, he found that the complainant’s vision was 6/9 with a refractive error of -0.25 diopter spherical. He advised him to use corrective glasses and suggested photochromic lenses.

The respondent further stated that the complainant did not get the spectacles made. Instead, he complained of a burning sensation and watering in the eye. In view of these symptoms, he prescribed certain medicines.

He specified that he prescribed Tab Raxly 150 mg, Tab Nimsin-P and Tab Aquasal, along with injections of Dexamethasone, Diclofenac and Ceftazidime. According to him, these medicines were pain relievers and could not have caused any harm to the eye.

The respondent maintained that the complainant’s loss of vision was not due to the medicines prescribed by him and that he had committed no medical negligence. He further contended that he had neither charged any consultation fee nor sold medicines to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, and the complaint was not maintainable. He alleged that the complaint had been filed with malicious intent and deserved dismissal.

The District Forum, in its order dated 31.01.2017, dismissed the complaint. It was observed that although the opposition party did not possess any medical qualification to prescribe allopathic medicines, the complainant failed to prove payment of consideration. Therefore, he was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, and the complaint was not maintainable.

The Forum, however, gave liberty to approach a competent court under other laws.

As a result, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed a first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

The State Commission upheld the order passed by the district forum and dismissed the appeal. It held that the appeal lacked merit and both parties would bear their own costs.

Challenging this, the complainant filed a revision petition before the NCDRC under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. The complainant argued that both the District Forum and the State Commission failed to properly examine the case on the merits.

The petitioner contended that the respondent had examined him, personally applied medicine to his affected eye, issued a handwritten prescription including eye drops, and charged Rs 500 in cash as consultation fee, though no receipt was issued. He submitted that this clearly established a consumer relationship and deficiency in service. On these and other grounds, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

NCDRC Observation

Referring to the district forum order, the apex consumer court observed, "the District Forum failed to return any findings on the core determinative issues, including the illegality of prescription by an unqualified person, medical negligence and deficiency in service, the causal link between the prescription and loss of vision, and the question of relief and compensation. Furthermore, the District Forum observed that the petitioner may approach the civil court for remedies, which approach itself demonstrates a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the consumer forum under the statute once the consumer relationship and deficiency in service were established."

The Commission further held that the State Commission compounded the error of the District Forum. After accepting the petitioner’s affidavit as proof of payment and recognising him as a consumer, the State Commission should have remanded the matter for a decision on the merits. Instead, it dismissed the appeal and held that the respondent, being a diploma holder, was authorised to prescribe allopathic medicines.

The Commission observed that the practice of modern medicine and allopathy is governed by Central legislation, namely the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 have now replaced. Under these laws, only a person possessing a recognised medical qualification and proper registration is entitled to practise and prescribe allopathic medicines.

Referring to Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the 1956 Act, the Commission noted that no person can practise or prescribe medicine without a recognised qualification and registration in the State Medical Register. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Baharul Islam & Ors. v. Indian Medical Association & Ors., which held that diploma holders or rural practitioners are not authorised to practise or prescribe allopathic medicine, as the field is governed by Central law.

In the present case, the Commission held that even if the respondent possessed a diploma in optometry or any allied field, such a qualification does not grant legal authority to prescribe allopathic medicines. Therefore, prescribing such medicines without proper qualification amounts to a deficiency in service and negligence in law, and the resulting injury to the complainant is a consequence of this illegal practice.

"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," observed the Commission.

Allowing the revision petition, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s order and directed the respondent to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, along with Rs 20,000 as litigation costs.

To view the order, click on the link below:

Also read- Facial cancer surgery without confirmed diagnosis: Rs 55 lakh compensation slapped on hospital, oncology surgeon, pathologists