New Delhi, Oct 8: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to constitute a three-member committee to examine whether pharmaceutical companies need to be brought under a statutory framework regulating marketing practices, including gifts, hospitality and other benefits offered to doctors to promote medicines.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued the direction while hearing a plea seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices and measures to prevent unethical interactions between drug companies and doctors. The committee will examine the need for such regulation and, if required, recommend the form it should take.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Union government would constitute the committee to assess the issue. It will consider suggestions and objections received from stakeholders before making recommendations to the Centre.
The Centre told the court that the existing regulatory framework allows disciplinary action against doctors who accept benefits from pharmaceutical companies. However, whether pharmaceutical companies themselves require statutory regulation remains to be examined by the proposed panel.
The proceedings stem from concerns over companies offering freebies, gifts, hospitality, travel facilities and other benefits to doctors as incentives for prescribing their products. The petitioner argued that the present framework creates an imbalance because doctors may face consequences for accepting inducements, while there is no corresponding statutory mechanism to regulate or penalise the companies offering them.
The Centre has been directed to file an affidavit on compliance with the court’s directions. The matter will next be heard on January 29.
The proceedings come as the Supreme Court is also examining broader concerns involving medicine pricing and affordability. In separate public interest litigation concerning medicine prices, generic drugs, medical devices and prescription practices, the same Bench has questioned the disparity between the prices at which medicines are supplied to retailers and their maximum retail prices.
In an earlier hearing, the court questioned the Centre over a cancer medicine carrying an MRP of Rs 27,000 but being supplied to retailers for around Rs 2,700 to Rs 3,000. The Bench described the roughly ten-fold difference as “broad daylight dacoity” and questioned why manufacturers should be allowed to set MRPs substantially above retailer supply prices.
The court also questioned whether a uniform margin could be prescribed for pharmaceutical products covered under the Essential Commodities Act, regardless of whether the medicines are classified as essential or non-essential under the Drug Price Control Order.
It further observed that a large gap between MRP and retailer supply price could undermine consumer confidence, noting that a patient could even suspect a medicine to be spurious when a drug marked at Rs 27,000 is available for around Rs 3,000.
