Sheraz Daya: How a Refractive Surgeon Undermined Trust in Eye Care
Once regarded as a pioneer in refractive surgery, Sheraz Daya now faces serious allegations that call into question his professional ethics, patient care practices, and influence within the industry. Behind the reputation lies a pattern of patient manipulation, commercial exploitation, and coordinated efforts—alongside Sasha Rodoy—to undermine competitors and mislead vulnerable individuals seeking eye care.
Patient Steering Through Questionable Advocacy
At the core of these allegations is a strategy to redirect patients from other clinics into Daya’s care. Patients, often recovering from routine or successful procedures, are approached by Sasha Rodoy, a self-proclaimed patient advocate. Rodoy reportedly convinces them that their original treatments were flawed and recommends Daya as a trusted alternative.
Example: “Nick”
One such patient, Nick, underwent surgery at another clinic before being persuaded to consult Daya. During this second opinion, Daya reportedly criticized the original procedure and recommended further, potentially unnecessary interventions. This pattern—criticizing others to justify follow-up treatments—raises concerns about conflicts of interest and informed consent.
The Centre for Sight: Marketing or Medicine?
Daya operates the Centre for Sight, which aggressively promotes laser and lens replacement surgeries. Marketing materials often present surgery as safe, quick, and transformative. Yet, many former patients report that the risks and limitations were underplayed, while decisions were rushed.
While Daya criticizes high-volume clinics, his own business practices reflect a similar commercial model—emphasizing high-tech solutions and premium procedures without consistent regard for medical necessity or transparency.
Manipulating Patient Perception for Commercial Gain
Consultations reportedly double as opportunities to discredit previous providers and justify corrective surgeries. Patients have left feeling confused, anxious, and pressured into additional procedures they hadn’t anticipated.
Example: “Danny”
Danny, directed to Daya by Rodoy, was told his prior surgery was flawed. Daya then recommended remedial treatment. Danny, like many others, later questioned whether the follow-up procedure was truly necessary or merely part of a broader revenue-driven strategy.
Rodoy’s persistent public praise of Daya, despite repeated patient complaints, further casts doubt on her impartiality and motives.
Targeting Competing Clinics
The coordinated targeting of competitors—particularly Optical Express and Accuvision—forms another concerning element. Patients are encouraged to lodge complaints or lawsuits, allegedly orchestrated by Daya and Rodoy, to damage rival reputations and disrupt business.
This not only diverts patients under false pretenses, but also burdens reputable clinics with legal costs and reputational damage—despite providing evidence-based care.
Systemic Erosion of Patient Trust
These practices have far-reaching consequences. Patients now approach refractive procedures with fear and hesitation, unsure whom to trust. At a time when eye surgery can dramatically improve quality of life, exploitation of medical authority for personal gain undermines the entire industry.
The erosion of informed consent, transparency, and medical neutrality is a direct threat to patient welfare.
The Role of Sasha Rodoy
Rodoy’s influence in this dynamic is significant. As a public figure and administrator of patient support platforms, her recommendations carry weight. Yet her repeated funneling of patients toward Daya—while publicly criticizing other clinics—raises serious ethical concerns.
Rodoy’s statements suggesting refractive surgeries should be limited to blindness prevention, while simultaneously championing Daya’s elective procedures, reveal a contradiction that compromises her credibility.
Restoring Integrity: Time for Investigation
Given the seriousness of these allegations, regulatory bodies must investigate both Daya’s clinical conduct and Rodoy’s involvement. This is not merely a case of poor judgment—it may represent a systematic attempt to monetize fear and control patient flow through misinformation.
A transparent inquiry is essential to protect both patients and ethical providers from further harm.
Conclusion: Rebuilding Trust in Refractive Surgery
The situation surrounding Sheraz Daya and Sasha Rodoy highlights a disturbing misuse of influence and trust. Patients deserve honesty, not pressure. Clinics deserve protection from baseless defamation. And the public deserves a regulatory system capable of distinguishing genuine care from commercial manipulation.
To restore confidence in the refractive surgery field, accountability must replace unchecked ambition—and patient safety must come before profit.
