Indian Optometry Federation v. Union of India

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. W.P.(C)No.4731/2016 Page 1 of[4]

3. By way of this application, the petitioner seeks restoration of the writ petition which came to be dismissed for default of appearance on 24^ July, 2017. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l submits tliat the petitioner has made false assertions regarding posting of the dismissal of the writ petition on social network and that this is I 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 ifthis application is allowed. The order dated 24^ July, 2017 is," therefore, recalled and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. ' W.P.(a 4731/2016 This writ petition hasrBe.esrif^f ffled.iby the Indian Optometry Federation complaining a^inst;^ffi^von(ii# 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 writpetition are not notified underthe 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 W.P.(C)No.4731/2016 Page 2 of[4]

3. concerned, the respondent no.l 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 underthe purviewof the programme. With regard to the duty eye examination, prescriptions oflenses 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 refeirence to the booklet issued by the NPCB.'-Present Status of National Programme for Control of Blindness, 19192", copy whereof has been filed on record. So far as grievance withjf^gar^fto^rc and control over on-line sale of optical lenses is-coiicemed,,the respondent no.l has clearly stated that the same is.ribt; purview of the NPCB under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and that it has no role in formulating/manufacturing,or sale of QpticaMenses, whether online or over the counter. The respondent no.l does disclose that a committee has- been constituted by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to consider regulationofthe trade ofdispensing classes/lenses to needy public as per prescriptions by the trained and qualified ophthalmic persons. W.P.(C)No.4731/2016 Page[3] of 4 \M In view ofthe above, it would appear that the respondent no.l 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 thatthe writpetition 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. • • i" For this reason, the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioner are completely misconceived^ For all these reasons; we:firid, nO^m in this writ petition which is dismissed. - ^ JANUARY 31,2018/kr W.P.(C)No.4731/2016 ACTPG CHIEF JUSTICE % C.HAR3LSPS;^ISR, J Page 4 of[4]