The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the huge gap between retailer price and MRP for life-saving drugs like cancer medicines, calling it 'broad daylight dacoity'. The bench questioned the absence of price controls and its impact on patients.

SC Calls Huge Price Gap 'Broad Daylight Dacoity'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the wide gap between the Price to Retailer (PTR) and Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of life-saving medicines, particularly cancer drugs, questioning the absence of effective price controls.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that in some cases, medicines bought by retailers for around Rs 2,700 were sold to patients at an MRP of Rs 27,000. “That's broad daylight dacoity with the patients,” Justice Mehta remarked, questioning how such pricing could be permitted for essential medicines.

The bench also flagged the burden on public funds when inflated medicine prices are reimbursed under government health schemes such as Ayushman Bharat.

Plea Seeks Wider Price Controls

The observations came during the hearing of a plea seeking mandatory generic prescriptions, regulation of the initial prices of non-scheduled medicines and price caps on medical devices.

Petitioner Kishan Chand Jain submitted that around 82 per cent of medicines fall outside the scheduled category under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), 2013, and manufacturers are not subject to upfront price fixation for such drugs.

The bench also highlighted price disparities in commonly used medicines, noting that a cholesterol-lowering drug could cost substantially more when sold as a non-scheduled formulation.

Arguments from Stakeholders

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, said pharmaceutical companies did not necessarily retain the large margins reflected in retail prices and urged the apex court to examine the prices at which medicines are sold to stockists and retailers.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said the Centre was committed to ensuring affordable medicines and was open to improvements, while referring to the Jan Aushadhi scheme.

The bench adjourned the matter and listed it for further hearing on September 29. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)