2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 206
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAKESH KUMAR SHUKLA – Appellant
Versus
ALOK EYE HEALTH AND OPTICAL CENTRE – Respondent
NC/RP/574/2025
##PAGE1##
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/574/2025
(Against the Order dated 3rd October 2024 in Appeal No. SC/9/A/408/2017 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)
WITH
NC/IA/4473/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
RAKESH KUMAR SHUKLA
PRESENT ADDRESS - RZ C-180, NIHAL VIHAR, DELHIWEST,DELHI.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
ALOK EYE HEALTH AND OPTICAL CENTRE
PRESENT ADDRESS - SEMRI CHAURAHA BHINGA SHRASASTI THROUGH ITS PROP. ALOK
KUMAR MISHRA S/O SRI RAMESH CHANDR MISHRA R/O VILL. UDAIPUR POST PARSURAM
PUR PARAGANA AD TEHSIL BHINGA DISTT. SHRAWASTISHRAVASTI,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR THE PETITIONER MD. ZARYAB JAMAL RIZVI, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER 12.01.2026
DATED: 30/01/2026
ORDER
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/the complainant/Ms.
Rakesh Kumar Shukla (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) avers that on
09.06.2010, his left eye turned red. On the following day, 10.06.2010, he visited the
respondent/opposite party/ Alok Eye Health And Optical Centre (hereinafter referred to
as “the respondent”) shop for treatment of the said eye. The respondent
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. However, due to the respondent’s negligent treatment, the petitioner’s left
##PAGE2##eye worsened progressively, developing a severe infection and deteriorating further.
On 11.06.2010, the petitioner traveled 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 respondent. Subsequently, on 19.06.2010, the
petitioner sought a second opinion from eye specialist Dr. Kishan Lal, who confirmed
that the eye was completely infected. Despite these interventions, the infection
persisted and could not be controlled. Thereafter, on 10.07.2010, the petitioner was
admitted to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Eye Centre in New Delhi for advanced treatment.
Regrettably, the vision in his left eye was lost permanently. During the course of this
treatment, the petitioner incurred medical expenses amounting to approximately
Rs.2,00,000/-. Consequently, the petitioner being aggrieved by the act of the petitioner
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 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrawasti (hereinafter referred to as "the
District Forum") 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/-,
2. The respondent filed reply before the District Forum and submitted that the
statement made in the complaint that the petitioner had approached him on
10.06.2010 for an eye examination. After examining the petitioner's eye, he prepared
a prescription for medication and provided the same to the petitioner. However, the
respondent has categorically denied all remaining allegations made by the petitioner,
terming them as false, baseless, and unsubstantiated.
In his additional statements, the respondent has clarified that the petitioner is related
to him as the nephew of his paternal aunt's husband and had visited him on
10.06.2010 at approximately 6:00 PM for the purpose of getting spectacles made.
Upon examination of the petitioner's eye, the respondent found that his eye vision
was 6/9 with a refractive error of -0.25 Diopter Spherical. Accordingly, he advised the
petitioner to wear corrective glasses and recommended the use of photochromic
lenses to enable pr