"IMA Needs to put its house in order": SC Slams Allopathic Doctors for Prescribing Expensive, Unnecessary Medicines

New Delhi: While considering the contempt plea by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court recently strongly objected to the petitioner association for alleged unethical acts where medicines are prescribed, which are "expensive and unnecessary". 

Issuing caution to the petitioner medical association about the complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, "The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the organisation where medicines are prescribed, which is expensive and unnecessary."

The apex court said that wherever there is a misuse of the position by the IMA to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment, it needs "closer examination".

It further told IMA that while it is pointing fingers at Patanjali, four fingers are pointing back at them. The bench asked, "Your (IMA) doctors also endorsing medicines in the allopathic field, if that's happening, why should we not turn the beam at you (IMA)?"

"Your (IMA) members also endorsed such products... your members are prescribing medicines," the bench said, while hearing the case filed by IMA against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd and its founders against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine, reports ANI.

Also Read: Misleading ads case: SC rejects apology of Ramdev, MD Balkrishna

The apex court said it would explore the larger issue of misleading health claims made by Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies and impleaded the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as parties to the case.

As per the latest media report by Live Law, Justice Kohli further questioned Advocate Patwalia, appearing for IMA, as to how many times complaints were brought to notice and what IMA was doing with respect to such member-doctors. Responding to this, the Senior Counsel replied that IMA was "cleansing across the Board" and would look into the allegations.

At this outset, the bench questioned why the Court should not bring IMA as well under the scrutiny. Justice Kohli noted at this outset, "[this] is a question we need to ask you too...It's not going to be all just that there are FMCGs, there is you and your members who are prescribing medicines on the strength of recommendations made for which there is valuable consideration - from what we understand...If that's happening, why shouldn't we turn the beam at you?"

The top court said FMCG companies were taking the public for a ride by publishing advertisements of products that affect the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens. It asked the Centre about the steps taken by it regarding misleading advertisements over the past three years.

Clarifying that the Court was not looking at the violations of Patanjali alone, the bench noted, "there are others on the other side who may not be before us but after going through the kind of coverage that has recently been brought to our notice of the misrepresenting advertisements for things which are food for babies, for children (which we now understand are under scrutiny by Union), Union will have to tell us something about it."

"We are not looking at the respondents (Patanjali) alone... the kind of coverage we have seen, now we are looking at all... We are looking at children, babies, women, and no one can be taken for a ride and the Union (government) must wake up to this," the bench observed.

Further, the top court bench has asked the licencing authorities of all States and Union Territories to be impleaded as parties in the case. It further directed the addition of the Indian Medical Association as a party to the case.

The bench said it is not here to "gun for a particular party,", it is in largest interest of consumers and the public to know how they are being misled, their entitlement to know the truth and what steps they can take.

"We are of the opinion that the petitioner(IMA) also needs to put its house in order. There are several complaints that are made with regard to alleged unethical acts of members of the petitioner-Association who prescribe medicines to the patients in the line of treatment...wherever there is misuse of their position, in recommending highly expensive medicines and/or extraneous medicines for valuable consideration," noted the bench.

Also Read:Is your Apology the same size as your advertisement? SC slams Baba Ramdev

On April 16, Ramdev and Balkrishna apologised to the Supreme Court for publishing misleading advertisements and making comments against allopathic medicines and Ramdev assured that he would "remain conscious about it in the future."

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that on April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.

Earlier, on two occasions, they tendered unconditional and unqualified apology with regard to the issue of advertisement. However, the bench refused to accept their affidavits, tendering apologies, and slammed them for the misleading advertisements carried out by them and the company. The apex court also slammed the Uttarakhand government for being "hand-in-glove" with errant licencing officers who failed to take action against Patanjali for publishing misleading advertisements.

The top court had earlier also directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future and later issued contempt of court notices to the company, Ramdev and Balkrishna.

Adjourning the hearing till April 30, the bench asked Patanjali's lawyers to bring on record the copy of the apology advertisements. In this regard, the bench said, "Do not enlarge them and supply it to us. We want to see the actual size... We want to see that when you issue an ad, it does not mean we have to see it by a microscope. It is not meant to be on paper but also read."

Also Read: Patanjali Ads Case: SC gives Ramdev, MD Balkrishna a week to issue public statement