Drugs, Medical Devices & Cosmetic  Bill  2022  ; suggestions 

 To,

Under Secretary (Drugs Regulation)

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Room 434, C Wing, Nirman Bhawan

New Delhi 110011

 

Date: 23rd July 2022

 

Subject: Submission of objections/suggestions in response to the Notification F No. X 11012/2/2021-DRS.

 

Respected Sir,

            Please consider this as a formal submission of objections/submissions in response to Notification F No. X 11012/2/2021-DRS vide which the Draft of the new Drugs, Medical Devices, Cosmetics Bill 2022 has been recommended.

This representation is being filed by the Medico Legal Action Group (MLAG). We are a non-profit trust at Chandigarh, formed in July 2013 by a group of doctors from all over the country who wish to legally engage the Govt of India regarding its various policies concerning medical profession, training, working conditions. We regularly take up such activities, which include filing of writ petitions, public-interest litigations, representations and RTIs to further the common goal of striving for the rights of doctors and establishing a constant dialogue with the policy makers to ensure proper participation from all the relevant stakeholders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon perusal of the Draft of the new Drugs, Medical Devices, Cosmetics Bill 2022, the following issues mentioned hereinbelow are highlighted: -

1.     Doctors of Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy) have  not  been  defined  as  Registered Medical Practitioners in  this  draft  Bill

a.     Section 86(s) registered medical practitioner is defined as: -

(i) for the purpose of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa systems, a person holding a qualifications granted by Universities, Boards or medical institutions recognized under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 and enrolled the name in the register maintained by State Council and/or National Commission for registration of an Ayurveda, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Unani practitioner medical practitioners under relevant State or Central Act; (ii) for the purpose of Homoeopathy drugs, a person holding qualifications granted by Universities, Boards or medical institutions recognized under the National Commission for Homoeopathy Act, 2020 and enrolled the name in the register maintained by State Council and/or National Commission for registration of Homoeopathy practitioner.

b.     Section 2(zk) defines over the counter drugs as:-

means drugs that can be sold by way of retail to a consumer without prescription from a registered medical practitioner as per the conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed;

c.     The Bill does not provide for a definition of a registered medical practitioner, for the purpose of Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy). Since there is no definition for registered medical practitioner, the definition provided under Chapter 5 under 86(s) is relied upon, which fails to cater to the interests of a qualified Doctor of Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy).

d.     Therefore, to solve this anomaly, either the definitions provided in Section 86 should be enlarged to include doctors prescribing Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy) and the definitions should not only be for Chapter 5 but for the entire Bill; or, a separate definition under Section 2 for registered medical practitioner must be drafted. By doing so, the definition of registered medical practitioner shall not only include Ayush / Ayurvedic doctors and shall also cater to doctors prescribing Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy). The  distinction between  the  different  types  of  Registered  Medical Practitioners  should  be  ensured.

e.     Another problem that comes to light once  the  definition  and  distinction  of  RMP (Modern Scientific Medicine / Allopathy) is  not  made  under  different  systems  of  medicine  is  the  issue  of  Doctors  qualified  and  registered  in  one  system  of 

medicine stocking and selling  medicine  of  another  system  of  medicine. All  RMPs  should  be  able  to  stock and sell / dispense  over  the  counter  medicines  of  different systems  of  medicine. However no  practitioner  of  Indian System  of  Medicine should  be  permitted  to  sell  or  dispense  modern scientific medicine (Allopathic)  other  than  the  over  the  counter  medicines  and  vice  versa. Similarly homeopathic  medicines  should  be  stacked  and  sold  only  by Registered Medical Practitioner of homeopathy, Therefore, a clear distinction between  various  types  of  RMPs  of  different  systems  of  Medicine is  necessary  as  also the procedure to  prescribe drugs  specific  to  the  system and over the counter drugs, that is applicable across the fields of Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Modern Scientific Medicine must be laid out.

f.      Further, punishments for illegal prescription, dispensing , stocking  and  sales of medicines by doctors not  registered  in  the  particular  system  of  medicine  must also be provided since  stocking , marketing and selling  has  been  equated  with  manufacturing under  this  Bill.

g.     This shall be largely in the interests of the consumer so that any drug that is prescribed  and  dispensed is being done only by a doctor practicing in such a field.

2.     RMPs of  Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy) should  not be required to acquire a drug license  in  order  to  maintain a  Pharmacy  for  their  patients

a.     Section 41 - Prohibition of manufacture and sale of drugs and cosmetics–

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (5), no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf,- (a) manufacture for sale or distribution, or sell, stock, exhibit, offer for sale or distribute, any,- (i) drug which is not of standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious; (ii) cosmetic which is not of standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious; (iii) proprietary medicine, unless there is displayed, on the label or container thereof the true formula or list of active ingredients contained in it together with the quantities thereof, in such manner as may be prescribed; (iv) drug which by means of any statement, design or device accompanying it or by any other means, purports or claims to prevent, cure or mitigate any such disease or ailment, or to have any such other effect as may be prescribed; (v) cosmetic containing any ingredient which may render it unsafe or harmful for use under the directions indicated or recommended; (vi) drug or cosmetic, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder; (vii) drug which purports or claims to prevent, mitigate, cure or convey that the same may prevent, mitigate or cure such diseases or ailments as may be prescribed or procure or assist to procure miscarriage in woman; (b) sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribute, any drug or cosmetic which has been imported or manufactured in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made there under; (c) manufacture for sale

or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute, any drug or cosmetic, except under and in accordance with a license issued by the State Licensing Authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture of small quantities of any drug for the purposes of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, by notification, permit, subject to any condition specified in the notification, the manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality.

(2) No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute, any drug by online mode except under and in accordance with a license or permission issued in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No person shall manufacture for sale of any new drug except in accordance with the permission or approval issued by Central Licensing Authority in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4) The Central Licensing Authority may, in public interest, abbreviate, defer or waive off such pre-clinical and clinical data requirements for approval of such new drug, relating to life threatening or serious diseases or rare diseases or diseases of special relevance to the country, in such manner as may be prescribed.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), on and from the commencement of this Act, no licence in respect of manufacture for sale or for distribution of drugs specified in the Third Schedule shall be issued by the State Licensing Authority without the approval of Central License Approving Authority in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Central License Approving Authority may issue directions to the State Licensing Authority in respect of any of the drugs included in the Third Schedule and such direction shall be binding.

(6) The Central Government may, by notification, amend the Third Schedule so as to insert therein or omit there from categories of drugs.

b.     Section 2(zb)“manufacture”: -

(a) in relation to any drug or any cosmetic, except human blood and its components, includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, labelling, packing, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to sell or distribute or stock but does not include the compounding or dispensing of any drug, or the packing of any drug or cosmetic in the ordinary course of retail business; (b)in relation to human blood and its components includes any process of collection, processing, separation, storage, labelling, packing and testing for its use or distribution for transfusion in human beings; (c) in relation to medical device, includes any process for designing, making, assembling, configuring, finishing, packing, sterilizing, labelling, or adapting with a view to sell or distribute or stock but does not include assembling or adapting a device already approved for use for an individual patient by registered medical practitioner;

c.     Upon perusal of the above-mentioned sections, all persons manufacturing and selling drugs shall require a license. However, upon further examination and by reading it with Section 2(zb) which defines ‘manufacture’, it implies that a doctor prescribing general medicines, shall also require the same. While the saving grace under Section 2(zb) is that ‘in the ordinary course of business’ is exempted, but the same needs more clarification. For example, a qualified doctor prescribing or dispensing medicine shall not need to acquire a drug license if he dispenses medicine only to his own patients but he will require a drug license if from his establishment, he not only sells the medicines he prescribes to his patients , but also sells them to outside patients, if they have a proper prescription by another doctor. Similarly for Small and medium healthcare establishments Hospitals (SMHCE) with less than 20 beds there should be no need for drug license to run a pharmacy as long as medicine / equipment / cosmetics are sold only to patients being treated in the establishment and  the sale of drug / medical equipment and cosmetics to outside patients is not done.

d.     Therefore, this aspect needs clarification such that a distinction must made between the professional dispensing medicines / medical equipment and cosmetics to his own patients versus maintaining an  open shop where anyone (even outside patients) can purchase from.

3.     Relation between manufacturer and branding

a.     Section 2(zc)“manufacturer”: -

means a person who himself manufactures drug, cosmetic or medical device and includes any other person who undertakes such manufacturing activity on his behalf.

b.     Section 2(zb)“manufacture”-

(a) in relation to any drug or any cosmetic, except human blood and its components, includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, labelling, packing, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to sell or distribute or stock but does not include the compounding or dispensing of any drug, or the packing of any drug or cosmetic in the ordinary course of retail business; (b)in relation to human blood and its components includes any process of collection, processing, separation, storage, labelling, packing and testing for its use or distribution for transfusion in human beings; (c) in relation to medical device, includes any process for designing, making, assembling, configuring, finishing, packing, sterilizing, labelling, or adapting with a view to sell or distribute or stock but does not include assembling or adapting a device already approved for use for an individual patient by registered medical practitioner; and expressions ‘marketed by’ or ‘promoted by’ or any other similar expression claimed on the label of drug shall be construed as manufacture.

c.     Upon reading Section 2(zb) and 2(zc) together, it implies that marketers and promoters are also treated as manufacturers. Multiple fly by the night companies get drugs manufactured at a facility or at multiple facilities and market them with their own brand names. While from the point of view of onus, it seems worthwhile to hold the marketers and promoters of manufactured medicines responsible, but in practical terms, this creates a logistical nightmare of the doctors.

d.     This is because, there  is  a plethora of “manufacturers” in the market, who are selling through different promoters and marketers. In reality, a doctor shall now have to choose from prescribing a single medicine manufactured by a single manufacturer but sold as 100 different brand names at different prices.

e.     Therefore, the solution to the same is that the ones who do not manufacture any medicine themselves, should not be allowed to sell medicines / medical equipment or cosmetics. Or, if manufacturers do sell the medicines through promoters and marketers, such numbers should at thevery least be restricted and limited.

f.      This shall also inspire market forces and ultimately enable only the best medicines on the market to survive and in turn benefit the consumer.

4.     Pricing of medicines

a.     Another subset of the problem mentioned above, that arises through a non-distinction between promoter and manufacturer is that generally when a medicine is made, it is sometimes sold by the same company on a different price/brand name to different consumers. This is done to satisfy large corporate customers with large discounts on MRP who then bill their patients at MRP making unhealthy profits. The same company also promotes the same drug in open market with a different brand name but with a reasonable pricing because market forces would not permit exorbitant pricing / MRP as is done for corporate hospitals. In principle no company should be permitted to manufacture and market one drug with different brand names and different pricing since this results in cheating of  the consumer.

b.     Therefore, there is a need for more scrutinization on the agreements signed by manufacturers with promoters and marketers so that there is a bar on selling medicines under different names to cater to large and small audience subsets. This can only be executed through a stringent system of checks and balances by the Drugs Controller General, India.

Therefore, to summarize:

1. Doctors prescribing or dispensing or selling Modern Scientific Medicine (Allopathy) have not been defined as Registered Medical Practitioners in this Bill. Section 2 and Section 86 must be amended accordingly so as to provide for their interests.

2. Clarity must be provided in the Act to a exempt a RMP from  requiring a drug license to maintain a pharmacy to provide medicines to his own patients unless and until he operates an  open shop;

3. The current definition of manufacturers includes promoters and marketers, which shall only lead to a plethora of market players that shall in turn make the prescription of medicines a logistical nightmare for the doctors;

4. Regulation and scrutinization of manufacturers to ensure fair market pricing and bar on one  manufacturer selling of same medicines with different names  and  different  prices.

In light of the above-mentioned objections and suggestions, we request you to take them into consideration immediately. Further, we would request  you  to  afford  us  an  opportunity  for  personal  hearing  in  the  matter.

Thanking you.

Regards

Dr. Neeraj Nagpal

 

Convenor and Managing Trustee

Medicos Legal Action Group

Office: SCO 1066-1067,Aerodale Market, New Sunny Enclave, Sector 123, Mohali 140301

Mob: +91 9888207176, 9465109935, 9478082176

Email: hopeclinics@yahoo.com, mlagindemnity@gmail.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog