Indian Optometry Federation vs Union Of India

Gita Mittal, J

CM No.3701/2018

Issue notice.

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.

Mr. Anuj Berry, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.

By way of this application, the petitioner seeks restoration of the writ petition which came to be dismissed for default of appearance on 24th July,

2017. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the petitioner has made false assertions regarding posting of the dismissal of the writ

petition on social network and that this is completely incorrect. Be that as it may, inasmuch as we propose to hear and decide the writ petition today

itself, no prejudice would result to any party if this application is allowed.

The order dated 24th July, 2017 is, therefore, recalled and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

W.P.(C) 4731/2016

This writ petition has been filed by the Indian Optometry Federation complaining against the online sale of optical lenses without medical prescription

and involvement of untrained, unqualified manpower in this trade.

While the respondent no. 1 has denied any responsibility, it is pointed out that lenses, mentioned in the writ petition are not notified under the Drugs and

Cosmetic Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1940.

So far as the job classification and job description for para-medical persons issued by the World Health Organisation are concerned, the respondent

no.1 has stated that the same are merely guidelines and advisories in nature and not binding on the eye care system in the country. It is also pointed

out that Vision Technicians and Refractionist Eye Mitra are not appointed by the States under the National Programme for Control of Blindness

(NPCB) and that their job description is not under the purview of the programme.

With regard to the duty eye examination, prescriptions of lenses and contact lenses, the NPCB appoints duly qualified Para-medical Ophthalmic

Assistants (PMOA’s) with two years diploma in ophthalmic techniques. Respondent no.1 has drawn a reference to the booklet issued by the

NPCB titled “Present Status of National Programme for Control of Blindness, 1992â€​, copy whereof has been filed on record.

So far as grievance with regard to regulation and control over on-line sale of optical lenses is concerned, the respondent no.1 has clearly stated that

the same is not under the purview of the NPCB under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and that it has no role in formulating/manufacturing or

sale of optical lenses, whether online or over the counter. The respondent no.1 does disclose that a committee has been constituted by the Ministry of

Health & Family Welfare to consider regulation of the trade of dispensing classes/lenses to needy public as per prescriptions by the trained and

qualified ophthalmic persons.

In view of the above, it would appear that the respondent no.1 is fully conscious of its responsibility and is undertaking all necessary steps.

So far as the objection of the petitioner to online purchases of optical lenses is concerned, we may note that the writ petition rests on blank

unsupported assertions without any material on record. Merely because a person purchases the necessary optical lenses online, could not ipso facto

render the same as being contrary to public interest or the health or care of the person. The respondent no.2 in its counter affidavit has stated that

online sales are effected only against confirmed prescriptions.

For this reason, the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioner are completely misconceived.

For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed.