'Blatant daylight dacoity': SC questions 10-fold price gap in cancer drug, asks authorities why they failed to act

The court raised concerns over the burden on patients after hearing that a cancer medicine bought by retailers for ₹2,700 reaches consumers at ₹27,000.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a 10-fold disparity in the price of an essential cancer drug, with the medicine sold to retailers for ₹2,700 but reaching consumers at ₹27,000, and asked the authorities why they had failed to act.

The petitions sought intervention of the court in regulating prices of drugs, equipment and generic medicines to make it affordable to common citizens. (Freepik) (Representative Image)

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing petitions on drug pricing and regulation of generic medicines, said such a disparity amounted to “dacoity” and raised concerns over the burden on patients forced to sell homes and jewellery to afford treatment.

Deep Dive

Why is there a significant price disparity in cancer drugs sold to consumers compared to retailers?

What steps are government hospitals taking to address the unavailability of essential cancer drugs?

How does the CDSCO identify spurious and not of standard quality (NSQ) drugs?

Powered ByAsk HT

“We wonder how a patient can be cheated for an essential cancer drug. We know of a cancer drug which the manufacturer sells at a price to retailers (PTR) of ₹2,700 which is then sold in the market for ₹27,000. This is blatant broad daylight dacoity, an absolute rampage and carnage they are doing to the patients,” the bench said.

Questioning the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the court said, “It is surprising that the authorities supposed to take a decision on this are completely silent. If this is not extortion then what is it? A medicine sold to retailers at 10% of MRP, why this disparity, is what we are asking?”

The petitions, filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain and doctor Sanjay Kulshresthra, sought intervention of the court in regulating prices of drugs, equipment and generic medicines to make it affordable to common citizens.

The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, said the government did not view the proceedings as “adversarial” and would make submissions on the existing mechanisms on September 29, the next date of hearing.

Pharma manufacturers, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said retailers, rather than manufacturers, were earning the profits.