'This is carnage': SC questions Rs 27,000 MRP on Rs 2,700 cancer drug at corporate hospital
Corporate hospitals don't spare anyone. They won't allow even the dead body to be taken out. The pharma sector is not bothered, says SC
- Sep 29, 2026,
- Updated Sep 29, 2026 4:49 PM IST
The Supreme Court called the steep markup on cancer medicines at corporate hospitals "carnage" after being told that a drug supplied to retailers for Rs 2,700 carried an MRP of Rs 27,000, news agency PTI reported on Tuesday.
"This is carnage. Plain and simple," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Centre.
The bench questioned the need for different margins on medicines and suggested a uniform 16% margin on all drugs. It also asked the Centre to examine the practice of corporate hospitals requiring patients to buy medicines from their own chemists or specified pharmacies.
The top court said the system ultimately affects patients and taxpayers, particularly when treatment is covered by government schemes.
'Why this 10 times' markup?'
Justice Mehta questioned the difference between the price at which a drug reaches a retailer and the MRP charged to patients. "Why this 10 times' markup? Where does this huge chunk of money go? Who is benefiting from it?" the bench asked.
It pointed to the cancer drug with a retailer price of Rs 2,700 and an MRP of Rs 27,000.
"Corporate hospitals don't spare anyone. They won't allow even the dead body to be taken out. The pharma sector is not bothered," the bench was quoted as saying.
Justice Mehta also questioned why medicines should have different margins depending on whether they are classified as essential or non-essential.
"Why this distinction? Essential or non-essential does not matter? Why not keep a 16 per cent margin on MRP of everything?" he said. "Think about what happens. Ultimately, the result is that the taxpayers suffer."
The bench said the government should examine the issue of hospitals requiring patients to purchase medicines from their own chemists or from a particular pharmacy.
"If that patient is taking treatment under a government scheme, who reimburses? The taxpayer does. So why not uniform criteria?" Justice Mehta said.
SC questions hospital pharmacy practices
The bench said patients could also be placed in a difficult position when medicines are available outside a hospital at a much lower price.
Justice Mehta gave the example of a pharmacist who might offer the cancer drug to a needy patient for Rs 2,700. The patient, he said, could then begin to question whether the medicine was genuine.
The court also raised questions about the margins on commonly used medicines.
Justice Mehta said a simple statin without a combination costs Rs 40, while one combined with aspirin costs Rs 70. "How is this happening? Corporate hospitals are industries. It is not a service at all. Why should the common man suffer all this?" the bench asked.
The bench said the issue involved not only pricing but also the ethical practices of medical practitioners. "We will examine this issue thoroughly. This affects a large section of the society," it said.
The Solicitor General said the government needed to discuss the issue with officials. "Let me have a meeting with the officials. Give me two weeks," he said.
He also said a balance would have to be found. "I am not saying the petitioners are wrong, but some way which balances equities will have to be found. As I understand, pharma companies are not the ones benefiting from it," Mehta submitted.
The bench was told that the pharma companies may not be the main beneficiaries and that private hospitals appeared to be gaining from the markups.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on October 12 and asked the Centre to respond on the issue.
The bench was hearing two petitions concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013.
One of the petitions, filed by Kishan Chand Jain, highlights the difference between scheduled and non-scheduled medicines.
Scheduled medicines are subject to ceiling prices, while non-scheduled formulations, which the petition estimates account for around 80% or more of the market by number and value, have greater freedom in setting MRPs, subject to annual price increases of up to 10%.
One petition has sought measures to make drug formulations more cost-effective and prevent alleged unethical overpricing of essential medicines by pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
It has also sought strict enforcement of price controls under the DPCO, action against violations in the drug supply chain, and measures against disproportionate profits by retailers through alleged unfair trade practices.
The other petition seeks disciplinary action against medical practitioners who do not prescribe generic medicines.
(With inputs from PTI)
The Supreme Court called the steep markup on cancer medicines at corporate hospitals "carnage" after being told that a drug supplied to retailers for Rs 2,700 carried an MRP of Rs 27,000, news agency PTI reported on Tuesday.
"This is carnage. Plain and simple," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Centre.
The bench questioned the need for different margins on medicines and suggested a uniform 16% margin on all drugs. It also asked the Centre to examine the practice of corporate hospitals requiring patients to buy medicines from their own chemists or specified pharmacies.
The top court said the system ultimately affects patients and taxpayers, particularly when treatment is covered by government schemes.
'Why this 10 times' markup?'
Justice Mehta questioned the difference between the price at which a drug reaches a retailer and the MRP charged to patients. "Why this 10 times' markup? Where does this huge chunk of money go? Who is benefiting from it?" the bench asked.
It pointed to the cancer drug with a retailer price of Rs 2,700 and an MRP of Rs 27,000.
"Corporate hospitals don't spare anyone. They won't allow even the dead body to be taken out. The pharma sector is not bothered," the bench was quoted as saying.
Justice Mehta also questioned why medicines should have different margins depending on whether they are classified as essential or non-essential.
"Why this distinction? Essential or non-essential does not matter? Why not keep a 16 per cent margin on MRP of everything?" he said. "Think about what happens. Ultimately, the result is that the taxpayers suffer."
The bench said the government should examine the issue of hospitals requiring patients to purchase medicines from their own chemists or from a particular pharmacy.
"If that patient is taking treatment under a government scheme, who reimburses? The taxpayer does. So why not uniform criteria?" Justice Mehta said.
SC questions hospital pharmacy practices
The bench said patients could also be placed in a difficult position when medicines are available outside a hospital at a much lower price.
Justice Mehta gave the example of a pharmacist who might offer the cancer drug to a needy patient for Rs 2,700. The patient, he said, could then begin to question whether the medicine was genuine.
The court also raised questions about the margins on commonly used medicines.
Justice Mehta said a simple statin without a combination costs Rs 40, while one combined with aspirin costs Rs 70. "How is this happening? Corporate hospitals are industries. It is not a service at all. Why should the common man suffer all this?" the bench asked.
The bench said the issue involved not only pricing but also the ethical practices of medical practitioners. "We will examine this issue thoroughly. This affects a large section of the society," it said.
The Solicitor General said the government needed to discuss the issue with officials. "Let me have a meeting with the officials. Give me two weeks," he said.
He also said a balance would have to be found. "I am not saying the petitioners are wrong, but some way which balances equities will have to be found. As I understand, pharma companies are not the ones benefiting from it," Mehta submitted.
The bench was told that the pharma companies may not be the main beneficiaries and that private hospitals appeared to be gaining from the markups.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on October 12 and asked the Centre to respond on the issue.
The bench was hearing two petitions concerning regulation of medicine prices, generic prescriptions, and controls on medical devices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013.
One of the petitions, filed by Kishan Chand Jain, highlights the difference between scheduled and non-scheduled medicines.
Scheduled medicines are subject to ceiling prices, while non-scheduled formulations, which the petition estimates account for around 80% or more of the market by number and value, have greater freedom in setting MRPs, subject to annual price increases of up to 10%.
One petition has sought measures to make drug formulations more cost-effective and prevent alleged unethical overpricing of essential medicines by pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
It has also sought strict enforcement of price controls under the DPCO, action against violations in the drug supply chain, and measures against disproportionate profits by retailers through alleged unfair trade practices.
The other petition seeks disciplinary action against medical practitioners who do not prescribe generic medicines.
(With inputs from PTI)