Latest news with #KVBabu
Time of India
3 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
NMC continues to reject patient appeals against state councils
Representative Image With the draft amendment bill of the NMC Act, which includes a provision allowing patients to appeal before the ethics board of the commission, in limbo since December 2022, the commission is repeatedly rejecting appeals filed by patients. In the latest rejection of a patient's appeal on June 11, the section officer of the Ethics Section of NMC states that 'To accept the appeal of non-medicos against SMC require the revision of the relevant provision of NMC Act 2019 i.e. passed by Parliament and any amend (sic) in the Act shall only be done by the act of Parliament.' The Ethics Board meanwhile is totally vacant as the health ministry is yet to complete the process of appointing members after the tenure of all its members came to an end. Hence, all communication is from the EMRB secretariat. A patient's right to appeal was not a part of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, which was replaced by NMC 2019. However, based on a 2002 Supreme Court order which upheld the patient's right to appeal, a clause was added to the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Clause 8.8 which was added stated: 'Any person aggrieved by the decision of the State Medical Council on any complaint against a delinquent physician, shall have the right to file an appeal to the MCI within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the said Medical Council'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Laxmi Ji Idol For Wealth, Peace & Happiness Luxeartisanship Shop Now Undo Thus, patients had won the right to appeal without amending the IMC Act 1956 but by introducing a clause in the ethics regulations. 'Section 30(3) of the NMC Act talks of a medical practitioner's right to appeal against an SMC's decision. It does not expressly prohibit or deny patients' right to appeal. Similarly, the IMC Act also did not expressly prohibit patients' appeals. Hence, the right was granted through addition of a clause in the ethics regulation and not through amendment of the IMC Act. The 2002 regulation has been in force right from the inception of the NMC,' argued Dr KV Babu an ophthalmologist and RTI activist. The NMC Act states that 'the rules and regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards or requirements are specified under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder'. The ethics code was not replaced by the NMC, except briefly in August 2023. On August 2, 2023, the NMC brought in the National Medical Commission Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2023 to replace the ethics regulation of 2002. However, in the face of huge protests from doctors and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry against the new regulations, which stipulated generic prescription, the NMC announced on August 23, 2023, that the new regulations were being held in abeyance with immediate effect. Along with this, EMRB notified that Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 was being adopted and made effective 'as if the same have been made by the commission by virtue of the powers vested under the NMC Act 2019'. In the NMC meeting held on December 12, 2023 it was decided that 'all appeals received by the EMRB will be entertained'. The minutes of the meeting added: 'Further, as regards action not being taken by State Medical Councils on complaints filed by non-medicos even after issuance of reminders by the boards. It was decided to send a communication by EMRB to State Medical Councils to complete the process in a time bound manner. In case of failure by the concerned SMC to act upon, EMRB may take over the complaint matter from the SMC and dispose of the same. This is noted by EMRB, and board will proceed further accordingly.' 'It was illegal for the Ethics Board to reject appeals of patients as they had the right from the very inception of the NMC. But to continue to reject appeals after the gazette notification on ethics regulation 2002 in August 2023 and the NMC decision in December 2024 is wilful denial of patient rights and it is for the health ministry to intervene and put a stop to this,' said Dr Babu. In response to Dr Babu's query to the health ministry on the status of the NMC Act amendment Bill, the ministry responded on April 30 this year that the matter was 'under consideration with the ministry'.
New Indian Express
14-06-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Pharma dept refuses to name 30 docs penalised for Paris, Monaco trip
NEW DELHI: Despite a Centre-appointed panel under the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) reprimanding AbbVie Healthcare India Pvt Ltd for violating the uniform code for pharmaceutical marketing practice (UCPMP) by sponsoring trips to Monaco and Paris, in France, for 30 doctors worth Rs 1.91 crore, the department has refused to share the names of the 'offending' doctors against whom action was to be initiated. Revealing the names would involve disclosing personal information of individuals and it was not in public interest, the department said, defending its decision. Notably, the refusal to share the names of the doctors by the DoP under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers comes five months after activist Dr K V Babu filed an RTI over the matter. Moreover, the DoP is yet to share the names of the doctors with the National Medical Commission (NMC), which was asked by the Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices to take action against the '30 offending healthcare professionals as per Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002' in its order on December 23, 2024. As per the norms, the doctor's licenses can be suspended if found guilty of violating the code of ethics. In its order, the committee also directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes to evaluate the tax liability of AbbVie Healthcare India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of US-based pharmaceutical company AbbVie Inc, for unethical marketing practices, along with the 30 doctors, and to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Pharma department refuses to name 30 doctors in bribery tangle
Representative image Thirty doctors who accepted foreign travel and hospitality worth Rs 1.9 crore from pharma company AbbVie in Feb-March 2024 have faced no action from NMC because the department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) has refused to make their names public and is yet to forward the names to the commission. The Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) bars pharma firms from offering travel or hospitality to healthcare professionals. Though the committee constituted by DoP found the foreign trips for doctors to be a violation of the law in Dec 2024, the names of the doctors had not been sent to NMC till May 8 this year, a response to an RTI application has revealed. Responding six months after receiving another RTI application seeking the names, the pharma department claimed the requested information "involves disclosure of names or personal information and also is not of public interest" and is accordingly not provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In May 2024, the department had received a complaint that AbbVie sponsored a pleasure trip disguised as medical conferences to Monaco and Paris, with evidence including flight tickets and hotel bookings. DoP constituted a special audit committee to audit AbbVie and forwarded the complaint to the Ethics Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices of pharma association, Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Though OPPI's committee found no irregularities in AbbVie's sponsorship, the special audit exposed "explicit contravention" of UCPMP. DoP's apex committee examined the audit and concluded AbbVie had violated UCPMP. However, in its Dec 23, 2024 order, it let off AbbVie with just a "reprimand". However, in response to an RTI query to NMC in May this year, the panel informed the applicant "the list of 30 doctors is yet to be received by this commission". Ophthalmologist Dr KV Babu, who filed the applications, said, "DoP is shielding the doctors by refusing to disclose names and failing to follow up on its own committee's recommendation." "The only punishment so far is reprimanding the pharma company in a case where the department's own special audit and apex committee found clear-cut violations. Yet, the department is shielding the guilty doctors by refusing to reveal the names and claiming that there is no public interest in making the names public. And worse, they haven't even bothered to implement the apex committee's recommendation that the doctors' names be forwarded to the NMC to take action," said Dr KV Babu, an ophthalmologist and RTI activist who filed the RTI applications with the NMC and the DoP.
New Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Five years on, proposal to amend act on misleading ads still on hold: RTI
NEW DELHI: Five years ago, the Union Health Ministry proposed significant changes to amend the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, which aimed to take stringent action against misleading advertisements, including those of Ayush medicines. However, an RTI has revealed that the ministry seems to have kept it in cold storage, as there has been no movement after November 2022. The amendments to the DMR (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, proposed widening the scope of the Act by introducing 24 more diseases and disorders, including drugs for treatment for enhancing sexual performance, and fairness of skin. The act applies to all drugs, including Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani, and Homoeopathy medicines. Replying to an RTI filed by activist, Dr KV Babu, the Union Health Ministry on May 15 said, 'As per available records, no noting has been recorded after 09/11/2022 in File No A.11035/133/2014-DFQC.' The Kerala-based ophthalmologist said, 'The draft proposal was put on the public domain in February 2020 following criticism of Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2018. Instead of 54 diseases, the scope was widened to 78 diseases and disorders and the punishment was enhanced to two years and five years, instead of six months and one year.' 'The proposed amendment has been under suspended animation for more than five years, and there is no file movement after November 2022,' he said.
Time of India
18-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
In a first, state regulatory authority warns Ayurvedic drug making firm
1 2 3 4 Kozhikode: In a first-of-its-kind move in the country, regulatory authorities in the state have acted against a prominent Ayurvedic drug manufacturer for violating Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which is meant to prevent misleading advertisements. Acting on a complaint filed by ophthalmologist and RTI activist Dr K V Babu on Feb 11, the Kerala deputy drugs controller (Ayurveda) carried out an investigation and subsequently issued a stern warning to Pankajakasthuri Herbals India Pvt Ltd for alleged violation of Rule 170 which mandates that manufacturers obtain prior approval from state licensing authorities before advertising their products. The drugs controller stated that any further violation could result in stringent measures against the firm, including withdrawal of the medicine's production licence. The investigation revealed that the company had not obtained approval for the advertisement issued for Orthoherb tablet published in a Malayalam daily on Jan 9. Pankajakasthuri Herbals had in its explanation to the drugs controller said that it had withdrawn the said advertisements and assured that it would issue advertisements in future only after obtaining prior approval. Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, is designed to prevent misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani (AYUSH) drugs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cost Of Amusement Park Equipment From Mexico Might Surprise You - See Tips Amusement Park Equipment | search ads Click Here Undo Specifically, it requires manufacturers to obtain prior approval from state licensing authorities before advertising their products. Dr Babu said the action taken by the deputy drugs controller (Ayurveda) was significant as it was for the first time in the country that action was taken on a complaint regarding Rule 170 after the rule was reinstated by the Supreme Court on Aug 27, 2024. Though Rule 170 was gazetted by the govt on Dec 24, 2018, it was stayed by the Delhi and Bombay high courts in 2019 and later omitted by the central govt.
