Medical Negligence Leaves Legal Aid Beneficiary Blind in One Eye: National Consumer Commission Holds That Diploma Holders Cannot Prescribe Allopathic Medicines

Medical Negligence Leaves Legal Aid Beneficiary Blind in One Eye: National Consumer Commission Holds That Diploma Holders Cannot Prescribe Allopathic Medicines

The complainant permanently lost vision in his left eye and was later fitted with a prosthetic eye, resulting in lifelong impairment and loss of earning capacity.

In what is being viewed as a significant and path-setting ruling in consumer law, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has allowed a long-pending medical negligence claim filed by a poor legal aid beneficiary who permanently lost vision in one eye after receiving treatment from an unqualified practitioner, and has categorically held that diploma holders have no authority in law to prescribe allopathic medicines.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member, with the detailed judgment authored by Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain. The complainant was represented by Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Advocate, appearing as Legal Aid Counsel on the specialised panel of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).

The complainant, a daily-wage worker, had approached a local eye clinic in June 2010 after experiencing redness in his left eye. The clinic was operated by a diploma holder who was not registered under the statutory framework governing allopathic medical practice. Despite lacking legal authority, the practitioner prescribed oral medicines, eye drops, and injections, and charged a consultation fee in cash.

Within days, the patient’s condition deteriorated rapidly. Subsequent consultations with qualified ophthalmologists revealed that the eye had developed a severe infection attributable to the medicines earlier prescribed. Despite undergoing advanced treatment at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre, New Delhi, the damage proved irreversible. The complainant permanently lost vision in his left eye and was later fitted with a prosthetic eye, resulting in lifelong impairment and loss of earning capacity.

The complaint was initially dismissed by the District Consumer Forum on technical grounds, including maintainability, and the dismissal was later affirmed by the State Commission. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the National Commission by way of a revision petition.

Allowing the revision, the National Commission held that both the District Forum and the State Commission had failed to properly adjudicate the core issues of illegal prescription, medical negligence, and deficiency in service. The Commission expressly rejected the State Commission’s conclusion that a diploma holder could lawfully prescribe allopathic medicines, holding such an approach to be contrary to Central legislation governing medical practice.

The Bench held that the practice of modern medicine is fully governed by Central law, now consolidated under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and earlier under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It was held that the right to prescribe allopathic medicines flows only from possession of a recognised medical qualification and statutory registration, and that unauthorised prescription by a diploma holder constitutes deficiency in service and medical negligence by operation of law.

Authored by Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, the judgment emphasised that consumer fora cannot legitimise informal or unauthorised medical practices, particularly where such practices result in irreversible harm. Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Advocate, who represented the complainant through legal aid, had argued that permitting unqualified prescription within the consumer law framework would undermine patient safety and defeat the very object of consumer protection legislation.

Recognising the permanent injury, prolonged suffering, and financial burden borne by the complainant, the National Commission awarded compensation of ₹2,00,000 along with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (November, 2011), and ₹20,000 towards litigation costs.

The case stands as a notable example of effective legal aid intervention through DSLSA, demonstrating how sustained representation by Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Advocate, enabled a marginalised victim of medical negligence to secure accountability even after prolonged litigation. Legal observers note that the ruling carries broader public health significance, particularly in semi-urban and rural areas where unqualified practitioners continue to prescribe potent allopathic medicines, often with devastating consequences.