New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock over the high prices of essential cancer medicines, calling the alleged overpricing a “broad daylight dacoity” against patients. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing two petitions concerning drug pricing and other issues related to medicines.
During the hearing, the court pointed out that an essential cancer drug had a maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs 27,000, even though it was being supplied to retailers at a price to retailer (PTR) of Rs 2,700.
The bench termed the difference “absolutely shocking” and questioned how such pricing could be allowed.
“The MRP is 10 times the rate at which it is provided to the retailers. If this is not extortion, then what it is? People sell their houses, ornaments to get treatment,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court also said, “There are essential medicines for cancer on which the MRP is printed as Rs 27,000 while the PTR is Rs 2,700. This is absolute rampage and carnage. This is broad daylight dacoity with patients.”
Supreme Court Questions Authorities
The bench questioned why patients were being exposed to such a large price difference and why the authorities responsible for regulating medicine prices had not taken action.
“It is very surprising that the authorities who are supposed to take action on this are silent,” the bench said.
The court also observed that price fixation of medicines was a major issue.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre in one of the petitions, told the court that the government was not treating the matter as adversarial litigation.
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on September 29.
What Are The Petitions About?
One of the petitions seeks directions to make medicines more affordable by preventing alleged unethical overpricing of essential drugs by pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
It also seeks strict enforcement of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, including action against alleged violations of the price-control mechanism and disproportionate profits by retailers.
The other petition seeks disciplinary action against medical practitioners who do not prescribe generic medicines to patients.
The Supreme Court’s observations came in the context of the petitions and the specific pricing example placed before it. The court has not yet issued a final ruling on the broader issues raised in the pleas.
(With inputs from PTI)