new Delhi: Supreme court On Friday, sought the opinion of the Center on one public interest litigation Seeking to make pharmaceutical companies criminally liable for bribing doctors for free to the tune of over Rs 4,000 crore every year for over-prescribing their drugs, which adversely affects public health.
Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud And Surya Kant Issued notice to the central government on a PIL filed by Federation of Medical and Sales Representative Association of India, alleging that showering of freebies on doctors influencing them to prescribe high-priced and potent drugs that could help patients of the underlying immune system and decreases in the future. complications
Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Sanjay Parikh Said a prime example of this was the mindless recipe of expensive remdesivir Injection for COVID patients during the pandemic even when its efficacy against the coronavirus was not scientifically proven. He said that such practice violates the right to life and health of the general public.
Currently only doctors are criminally liable for receiving bribes rather than prescribing a particular drug, Parikh said, although the SC has repeatedly ruled that both the bribe giver (in this case the Parma companies) and the bribe taker The ones (doctors). equally responsible.
He requested the court to intervene in making a guideline to hold pharmaceutical companies liable for giving them free of cost to doctors. Petition filed through advocate Aparna Bhati informed the court that “Pharmaceutical companies in India spend huge amounts of money in promoting sales so as to influence doctors to prepare maximum prescriptions thereby increasing the sales of drugs”.
“A study says that the top seven pharma companies have spent Rs 34,187 crore in marketing (on an average Rs 4273 crore per annum) in the last eight years, making drugs costlier. Sales promotion expenses are 20% of the cost of drugs , thereby taking the drugs further away from the reach of the common man.”
The petitioner alleged, “Though these are called ‘sales incentives’, these are direct or indirect benefits (in the form of gifts and entertainment, sponsored foreign trips, hospitality and other benefits) to doctors in return for increased sales of the drug. ”
Last month, the SC had ruled that pharma companies are not entitled to claim tax exemption on expenditure incurred for giving incentives to doctors to promote their medical products and will be treated as part of their income.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat had on February 22 dismissed a plea of a pharma company seeking exemption on expenditure of Rs 4 crore made on freebies, including hospitality, conference fees, gold charges, etc. coins, LCD TV, Fridge, Laptop etc. to the doctors to create awareness about the health supplements manufactured by it.
The Supreme Court had upheld a 2012 circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which clarified that such expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries for distribution of incentives to medical practitioners under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. ineligible for benefits. business deduction.
Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud And Surya Kant Issued notice to the central government on a PIL filed by Federation of Medical and Sales Representative Association of India, alleging that showering of freebies on doctors influencing them to prescribe high-priced and potent drugs that could help patients of the underlying immune system and decreases in the future. complications
Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Sanjay Parikh Said a prime example of this was the mindless recipe of expensive remdesivir Injection for COVID patients during the pandemic even when its efficacy against the coronavirus was not scientifically proven. He said that such practice violates the right to life and health of the general public.
Currently only doctors are criminally liable for receiving bribes rather than prescribing a particular drug, Parikh said, although the SC has repeatedly ruled that both the bribe giver (in this case the Parma companies) and the bribe taker The ones (doctors). equally responsible.
He requested the court to intervene in making a guideline to hold pharmaceutical companies liable for giving them free of cost to doctors. Petition filed through advocate Aparna Bhati informed the court that “Pharmaceutical companies in India spend huge amounts of money in promoting sales so as to influence doctors to prepare maximum prescriptions thereby increasing the sales of drugs”.
“A study says that the top seven pharma companies have spent Rs 34,187 crore in marketing (on an average Rs 4273 crore per annum) in the last eight years, making drugs costlier. Sales promotion expenses are 20% of the cost of drugs , thereby taking the drugs further away from the reach of the common man.”
The petitioner alleged, “Though these are called ‘sales incentives’, these are direct or indirect benefits (in the form of gifts and entertainment, sponsored foreign trips, hospitality and other benefits) to doctors in return for increased sales of the drug. ”
Last month, the SC had ruled that pharma companies are not entitled to claim tax exemption on expenditure incurred for giving incentives to doctors to promote their medical products and will be treated as part of their income.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat had on February 22 dismissed a plea of a pharma company seeking exemption on expenditure of Rs 4 crore made on freebies, including hospitality, conference fees, gold charges, etc. coins, LCD TV, Fridge, Laptop etc. to the doctors to create awareness about the health supplements manufactured by it.
The Supreme Court had upheld a 2012 circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which clarified that such expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries for distribution of incentives to medical practitioners under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. ineligible for benefits. business deduction.