SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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



Petitioner Advocates:MD ZARYAB JAMAL RIZVI ,Respondent Advocate:

##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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top