Prescribing a code of conduct to regulate the relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies is a “serious” matter, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, after a petitioner said a particular drug manufacturer spent hundreds of crores in freebies to medical practitioners.
The lawyer representing Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India (FMRAI) cited what he said was a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) press release to contend that the manufacturer of Dolo 650, a popular fever drug, had spent ₹1,000 crore in freebies, although HT could not verify the claim.
At this, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, who was on the bench with Justice AS Bopanna, said: “What you are saying is not music to our ears. This is exactly what I had when I got Covid. This is a serious issue.”
Dolo 650, which was in high demand during the Covid-19 waves, is a popular antipyretic, or fever suppressing medication.
The bench asked the central government to file its response to the petition by FMRAI along with two other individuals.
Ramesh Sundar, president of the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives’ Association of India, said the PIL was filed by the body in 2021 to highlight the unethical practices in pharmaceutical marketing..
“We do not want to trivialise the matter by going after a particular company. This is not just a matter of ₹1,000 crore. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem of an unregulated pharma market is much bigger.”
The association claimed that the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations of 2002 prescribe a code of conduct for doctors. As per this Code, acceptance of gifts and entertainment, travel facilities, hospitality, cash or monetary grants by medical practitioners from pharmaceutical companies is prohibited.
But, this code is not statutory and lacks the force of law. The petition demanded that pharmaceutical companies should be made equally liable for openly bribing doctors with free gifts, travel packages and hospitality in exchange of prescribing their drugs as this concerned the health of citizens.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Sanjay Parikh referred to the July CBDT press release to state: “The manufacturers of Dolo (which is paracetamol 650mg) were found to distribute gifts worth ₹1000 crore to doctors. This highlights the need for a code. There is a code, the only question is whether it should be voluntary or statutory”.
The bench replied that it may not be possible for the court to direct the parliament to frame a specific legislation. At the same time, it said that it would want the Union government to file a comprehensive reply to respond to the concerns raised by the petitioners, and posted the matter for hearing next on September 29.
The petition, filed by advocate Aparna Bhat, stated: “There are abundant examples that show how corruption in the pharmaceutical sector endangers positive health outcomes and puts patients’ health at risk. As violations of this kind have become a recurring phenomenon and are progressively becoming more pervasive, the petitioners pray that a statutory code of ethical marketing for the pharmaceutical industry, with penal consequences, be established to curb such practices for the enforcement of the fundamental right to health of the people of India.”
The top court had issued a notice to the Centre in March this year and since then, the Centre has been seeking time to file a response.
On Thursday, additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, informed the Court that the Centre had introduced amendments in the Finance Act by which freebies offered to doctors will be taxable. “This will act as a disincentive against pharma companies,” the law officer said.
This amendment followed a decision by the top court in February this year where the Court had said, “It is a matter of great public importance and concern, when it is demonstrated that a doctor’s prescription can be manipulated and driven by the motive to avail the freebies offered to them by pharmaceutical companies, ranging from gifts such as gold coins, fridges and LCD TVs to funding international trips for vacations or to attend medical conferences.” The judgment refused tax exemption on freebies received by doctors.
The association of pharmaceutical companies was also keen to join the proceedings before the Court. Advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja informed the Court that the association would seek to file an intervention application in the matter.
(With inputs from agencies)