New Delhi, Sep 29 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the huge disparity between the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines and the price at which they are supplied to retailers, asking the Centre why a uniform margin cap could not be prescribed for pharmaceutical products.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised particular concern over cancer medicines carrying an MRP of Rs 27,000 while their price to retailers (PTR) was around Rs 3,000.
The apex court also flagged the practice of corporate hospitals requiring patients to purchase medicines from their in-house pharmacies, observing that patients who procure medicines from outside may not be assured treatment.
“Corporate hospitals say you have to buy from our chemist. If you bring it from outside, we are not assuring treatment. If that patient is taking treatment under a government scheme, who reimburses? The taxpayer pays. Why not uniform criteria?” it asked.
The Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench further questioned the distinction between essential and non-essential medicines under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), asking why a uniform margin per cent could not be prescribed across pharmaceutical products covered by the Essential Commodities Act.
It also raised concerns over the impact of a large MRP-PTR gap on consumer trust, observing that a patient could even suspect a medicine to be spurious if a drug carrying an MRP of Rs 27,000 was offered by a chemist for around Rs 3,000.
“Suppose there is a medicine, the patient goes to the chemist; the chemist says MRP may be Rs 27,000, I will give it for Rs 3,000. Will the patient think it is genuine? He will think it will be a spurious one. Where does this huge chunk of money go?” the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the Union government would have to find a way forward while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
“We will have to find a way out. Some way that balances equities. Let me sit with the officers and then respond,” SG Mehta submitted, seeking an adjournment.
The Supreme Court has now posted the matter for further hearing on October 12. The proceedings arose from PILs concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic medicines, medical devices and prescription practices.
In the previous hearing on September 22, the Supreme Court had questioned why a cancer medicine bought by a retailer for around Rs 2,700 could carry an MRP of Rs 27,000, describing the ten-fold difference as “broad daylight dacoity”.
“There are medicines, essential cancer medicines, whose MRP is 27,000 and the PTR is 2700. That’s absolute dacoity, broad daylight dacoity,” Justice Mehta had observed.
The apex court had also questioned why manufacturers should be permitted to fix MRPs substantially higher than the price at which medicines are supplied to retailers.
PIL litigant Kishan Chand Jain had submitted that there was no effective regulatory mechanism governing the initial price fixation of medicines outside the controlled-price list, arguing that manufacturers could initially fix the price at any level and were thereafter restricted mainly in terms of subsequent increases.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, had submitted that manufacturers were not responsible for the high prices ultimately paid by patients and that retailers were earning substantial margins.
–IANS
pds/vd