Interim relief: Gujarat HC stays suspension of 3 dermatologists in Rs 1.9 crore Pharma freebies case
Ahmedabad: Following the suspension order by the Gujarat Medical Council against three dermatologists for 13 months in the alleged Rs 1.9 crore pharma freebies case, the Gujarat High Court has stayed the disciplinary action and granted interim relief to the doctors until further orders.
Issuing a notice to the council for response on the matter by September 8, Justice Nirzar Desai passed the order while hearing petitions filed by the 3 concerned doctors, whose registrations were suspended by the state medical council on June 30. The suspension was scheduled to take effect from August 30, 2026 to September 29, 2027.
Background
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the three dermatologists were among the 30 healthcare professionals from nine States who were found guilty of accepting a foreign trip worth Rs 1.9 crore to Paris and Monaco, sponsored by pharma company AbbVie.
The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) had last year received a complaint stating that the pharma company AbbVie provided travel tickets and hotel accommodations for extravagant pleasure trips under the guise of conferences (Aesthetics 86 Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress 2024), which took place from February 1 to 3, 2024, and from March 26 to 29, 2024, in Monaco and Paris, respectively, for 30 doctors connected to the medical aesthetics/anti-ageing products (Botox and Juvederm).
The total expense was reported to be Rs 1.91 crore, covering flights and hotel stays. Later, while investigating the issue, the Special Audit Committee of DoP found these allegations to be true.
On June 30, the Gujarat Medical Council suspended the three dermatologists. These doctors are Dr Sakhiya and Dr Shah from Surat, and Dr Patel from Ahmedabad. In its order, the council stated, "Such conduct on the part of these medical practitioners is a clear breach of clause/ paragraph 6.8 of the Regulations, 2002."
Even though a total of 30 doctors were found guilty, the Government had sent 27 names to the National Medical Commission (NMC) for taking action. Information obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by Kerala-based ophthalmologist and a health activist, Dr. KV Babu, revealed that of these 27 doctors, a total of 11 doctors are from Maharashtra, three each are from Gujarat and Telangana, two each from Punjab, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Delhi, and one each from Assam and Kerala.
The State Medical Councils of these nine States were sent the names of these doctors on December 15, 2025, for holding an enquiry and "award such punishment as deemed necessary".
On May 26, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) of the Apex Medical Commission sent a reminder in this regard to the State Medical Councils of Assam, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana, and West Bengal.
Under the NMC Act, if a State Medical Council fails to decide a complaint within six months, the NMC can refer it to its own ethics committee.
Doctors Moved HC
Challenging the council's order, the three dermatologists moved the Gujarat High Court and argued that they had travelled abroad to attend training sessions on anti-ageing treatment organised by a multinational company and not for promotional activities. They alleged that the corporate rivalry was the reason that might have prompted an anonymous complaint before the NMC.
During the hearing, their counsel informed the court that the agreement signed before the programme clearly stated that the doctors were not connected with the company's products and were not expected to promote or prescribe them. They also said that nearly 15,000 doctors from different countries participate in the same programme. The counsel submitted that after training, these doctors were supposed to train other doctors in India.
Their counsel submitted that the medical council rules provide for a procedure before taking any punitive action against doctors. Rule 79(3) stated that council cannot entertain any anonymous complaint and provides for various stages like issuance of notice to the medical practitioner, supply of a copy of the documents, to grant an opportunity for legal assistance and respond, and Rule 84 provides for notice of charges, and thereafter the entire procedure to conduct the inquiry is set out under Rule 88. But the procedure was ignored.
The petitioners also pointed out that while the company that organised the programme was only reprimanded, the doctors were given a much harsher punishment.
After the preliminary hearing, Justice Nirzar Desai issued a notice to the Gujarat Medical Council and sought its reply by September 8. The court also granted ad-interim relief, staying the suspension order until further directions.
"In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(B) in all petitions till further orders," the judge said in its order, as per the latest media report by TOI.
Also read- Rs 1.9 crore Pharma freebies case- Gujarat Medical Council suspends 3 dermatologists
