New Delhi, September 30 (TNA) The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the steep prices of essential medicines at corporate hospitals, questioning how a cancer drug supplied to retailers for around ₹2,700 could carry a maximum retail price (MRP) of ₹27,000.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised the issue while hearing a case related to medicine pricing and hospital practices. The court described the tenfold price difference as extremely serious and said such pricing places an unfair burden on patients and taxpayers.
Questions In-House Pharmacy Practice
The bench also questioned the practice of private hospitals allegedly requiring patients to purchase medicines only from their in-house pharmacies. The court asked why patients were sometimes told that treatment would not be assured if they brought medicines purchased from outside. It observed that such a condition leaves patients with little choice and may allow hospitals to charge excessive prices for essential medicines.
The issue becomes even more significant when patients are treated under government health schemes, the court noted. In such cases, inflated bills may ultimately be reimbursed from public funds, placing an additional burden on taxpayers.
Centre Asked to Examine Pricing
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to examine the possibility of applying a uniform 16 per cent margin to medicines. It also sought scrutiny of the pricing practices of pharmaceutical companies, retailers and private hospitals.
The court’s observations came amid allegations that corporate hospitals were functioning more like profit-driven industries than institutions focused on patient care. It questioned whether commercial interests were being prioritised over the affordability of life-saving treatment.
Warning Over Inaction
The bench indicated that the court could intervene against private hospitals if the government failed to take effective action to prevent exploitative pricing and coercive in-house pharmacy practices. The court’s remarks are part of ongoing proceedings and do not amount to a final judgment on all the allegations. The Centre’s response and further directions from the Supreme Court are awaited.