Rs 1.9 crore pharma freebies case: Delhi HC grants interim relief to 30 doctors, stays disciplinary action
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: Granting interim relief to 30 doctors, including several dermatologists, who were named accused in the Rs 1.9 Crore Pharma Freebies case, the Delhi High Court has stayed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.
While considering the plea filed by the doctors who had challenged the December 23, 2024 order of the Apex Committee on pharma marketing practices, the HC bench comprising Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma observed that the petitioner doctors had established a prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
Why were these doctors facing Disciplinary Proceedings?
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that 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.
Earlier, the DoP Committee reprimanded AbbVie Healthcare and requested that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) evaluate M/S's tax liability. AbbVie Healthcare India Pvt Ltd, along with 30 HCPs, and take action in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the subordinate circulars issued in this regard.
Apart from this, the Committee had also asked NMC to take action against the 30 offending doctors as per the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) 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. Out 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.
Doctors' petition:
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the doctors argued that they had only entered into professional service agreements with the company for knowledge dissemination and they became aware of the order passed by the Apex Committee only when the Maharashtra Medical Council issued a notice to them in July.
The doctors submitted that the entire action against them was based on an anonymous complaint, when the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024 clearly prohibits consideration of anonymous complaints.
Further, the petitioners highlighted that on September 20, 2024, the Ethics Committee on Pharma Marketing Practices itself stated that anonymous complaints are not maintainable under both the UCPMP 2014 and 2024.
The doctors also referred to clauses 10.3 and 10.4 of the UCPMP 2024 and argued that disclosing the complainant's identity is mandatory and that anonymous or pseudonymous complaints cannot be accepted. They also relied on Rule 62 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Rules, 1967, which allows such complaints to be ignored.
Ŏbeservation by High Court:
Taking note of these arguments, the HC bench observed that it is a significant legal question whether such a complaint can be acted upon solely based on the seriousness of the allegations when the UCPMP 2024 itself prohibits anonymous complaints. Further, the bench observed that no one has yet appeared on behalf of the respondents.
"In these circumstances, the petitioners have established a case for grant of interim protection," observed the bench.
The HC bench has also stayed the implementation of the December 23, 2024 order directing the initiation of action against the accused doctors. The Court further clarified that by virtue of this order, all other disciplinary proceedings initiated against the doctors, including those before the Maharashtra Medical Council, will also remain suspended till the final decision of the petition.
The court also clarified that by virtue of this order, all other disciplinary proceedings, including those before the Maharashtra Medical Council, will also remain suspended till the final decision of the petition.
Earlier, taking action in the matter, the Gujarat Medical Council had suspended the medical registrations of three dermatologists from the State for 13 months for their alleged misconduct in this connection. Among these three dermatologists, two doctors are from Surat, and one hails from Ahmedabad,
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.
Ultimately, the Gujarat HC stayed the disciplinary action and granted interim relief to the doctors until further orders and suspended the order by the Gujarat Medical Council against the three dermatologists.
