‘Broad daylight dacoity with the patients’: Supreme Court questions ₹27,000 MRP on ₹2,700 cancer drug

The Supreme Court has questioned how a cancer drug sold to a retailer for ₹2,700 can carry a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹27,000, calling such a 10-fold difference “daylight robbery on patients”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also asked the Centre where a common person would go if high-priced essential medicines are not available at Jan Aushadhi Kendras.

“There are essential medicines for cancer for which MRP is ₹27,000 and PTR is ₹2,700,” the bench said.

“That is absolute rampage and carnage and broad daylight dacoity with the patients. How can a patient be cheated for a medicine which the manufacturer sells to the retailer at ₹2,700 and MRP is printed at ₹27,000?” it remarked.

“It is surprising that the authorities who are supposed to take a decision on this are absolutely silent. We need not spell out the reasons for that,” the bench added.

Don't Miss: No prescription, no pills: Govt cracks whip on misuse of painkillers, antibiotics

The court also flagged the issue of huge price differences between the Price to Retailer (PTR) and MRP of essential and life-saving medicines.

The bench also raised concerns over essential and life-saving medicines being purchased under the Ayushman Bharat scheme at the “seriously inflated” MRP, calling it a “fraud on taxpayers”.

The observations were made while hearing a PIL seeking mandatory generic drug prescriptions and controls on the prices of essential and life-saving medicines.

Petitioner Kishan Chand Jain informed the court that under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) of 2013, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) fixes ceiling prices for only around 1,000 “scheduled” drugs.

Must Read: Setback for Subhash Chandra: NCLT puts media baron's repayment plan on hold, seeks CBI response in 4 weeks

This leaves nearly 82 per cent of medicines in the market as non-scheduled drugs, allowing for such huge price differences, the petitioner submitted.

The matter has been adjourned to September 29.