Delhi High Court Stays Action Against 30 Doctors In Pharma Freebies Case, Says Anonymous Complaint Require Examination

The Delhi High Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings initiated against 30 healthcare professionals, including dermatologists, in connection with alleged unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices conducted by AbbVie Healthcare India Private Limited.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the doctors had made out a case for grant of interim protection in their favour. The Court passed the interim order in a petition filed by the doctors challenging an order of the Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices dated December 23, 2024, which had directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to take action against them under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. For context, acting on an anonymous complaint from May 2024, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) reprimanded AbbVie Healthcare India for spending Rs. 1.91 crore on luxury foreign trips to Monaco and Paris for doctors promoting Botox and Juvederm. The DoP had then forwarded names of implicated doctors to the NMC for disciplinary action. The petitioner doctors contended that they had entered into professional service agreements with AbbVie Healthcare for knowledge dissemination activities and were not even aware of the Apex Committee's order until the Maharashtra Medical Council issued notices to them in July. They said that the proceedings originated from an anonymous complaint accusing the Pharma company of violating the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024.The doctors argued that the UCPMP expressly prohibits entertaining anonymous complaints. They also said that the Ethics Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices had itself held on September 20, 2024 that anonymous complaints were not maintainable under either the UCPMP 2014 or UCPMP 2024. The doctors placed reliance on Clauses 10.3 and 10.4 of the UCPMP 2024, which require complainants to disclose their identity and specifically state that pseudonymous or anonymous complaints shall not be entertained. They also relied on Rule 62 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Rules, 1967, which permits anonymous complaints to be disregarded. Granting interim protection to them, the Court said that the issue as to whether the proceedings which originated from an anonymous complaint could have been entertained on the ground of seriousness of allegations, despite the stipulation contained in Clause 10.4 of the UCPMP 2024, required consideration. It also noted that no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents till date. “In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the Maharashtra Medical Council has already issued notices of charge to the petitioners and the disciplinary proceedings are presently underway, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of interim protection,” the Court said. “Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated 23.12.2024, insofar as it directs initiation of action against the petitioners herein, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the petition. Consequently, all proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, including the proceedings before the Maharashtra Medical Council shall also remain stayed,” the Court added.Title: DR KIRAN NINAD HEBBALKAR & ORS v. APEX COMMITTEE FOR PHARMA MARKETING PRACTICES & ORSClick here to read order

Delhi High Court Stays Action Against 30 Doctors In Pharma Freebies Case, Says Anonymous Complaint Require Examination

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Delhi High Court Stays Action Against 30 Doctors In Pharma Freebies Case, Says Anonymous Complaint Require Examination

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers