Posted on

PERMISSIBLE PRICE INCREASE AND CALCULATION OF OVERCHARGED AMOUNT UNDER DRUG PRICES CONTROL ORDER (DPCO)

DRUGS AND MEDICAL DEVICES PRICE INCREASE RESTRICTIONS

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Union of India v Bharat Serums, has laid down how the overcharged amount should be calculated by India’s drug price control regulator, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (“NPPA”). The judgement will have a significant impact on existing as well as future demands for overcharging which are raised on pharmaceutical and medical device companies in India.

Background

Under Para 20 of India’s drug price control law, the Drug (Prices Control) Order, 2013 [“DPCO”], all non-scheduled formulations are allowed to increase their price by 10% in 12 months. Non-scheduled formulations are non-essential drugs or medical devices that are not listed in the schedule of DPCO. Most pharmaceutical and medical device companies do not use the 10% price increase opportunity in the 12-month period and elect to increase the price after a number of years.

When the opportunity does arise to increase prices, the question that always arises is whether the company can increase the price by the ‘aggregate’ of permitted percentage increase, or by a maximum of 10% from its last published Maximum Retail Price (MRP). For instance, if the MRP of a drug or medical device was Rs. 100, and the company selling the product decides to increase the price of the drug or medical device after a period of 5 years, would it be entitled to increase the price of the product by Rs. 50 (10% increase allowed every 12 months period), or by Rs. 10 (10% increase from last MRP irrespective of the time gap).

The other question that arises is if a pharmaceutical or medical device company increases the MRP of its product by more than 10% in a 12-month period, then how should NPPA recover the overcharged amount? For instance, if the MRP of a drug or medical device was Rs. 100 earlier, and if the company revises the MRP of the product to Rs. 200 after 5 years, how should NPPA calculate the overcharged amount? Should NPPA assume that the company was only allowed to increase MRP by 10% and recover the remainder amount as an overcharged amount? In other words, should NPPA give a concession of Rs. 10 to the company and proceed to recover Rs. 90, or should NPPA ‘assume’ that the company would have increased its price by 10% each year, and proceed to recover only the balance amount, in this case Rs. 50 (or more accurately Rs. 39 since a 10% increase every year for 5 years would have resulted in MRP of Rs. 161).

The above questions were conclusively answered by the Delhi High Court and are discussed below.

Interpretation of 10% permissible price increase in 12-month period

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the 10% allowance to increase MRP as follows: the MRP of non-scheduled formulations can only be increased by 10% in a period of 12 months, at a time, but in case of overcharging, the NPPA will have to assume that the company would have taken the 10% MRP increase and will be permitted to recover the ‘net’ amount.

The above interpretation is explained using examples in the paragraphs below.

Examples

What is permissible MRP increase for a pharmaceutical or medical device company?

If the MRP of a non-scheduled drug or medical device was Rs. 100 in 2014, the permissible price increase on yearly basis would be as follows:

Years01.01.201401.01.201501.01.201601.01.201701.01.201801.01.201901.01.2020
  Actual MRP100110121133.1146.41161.05177.15

If a pharmaceutical or medical device company wishes to take 10% increase after 5 years, how much can that be?

If the MRP of a non-scheduled drug or medical device was Rs. 100 in 2014, and the company decided to take a price increase in 2019, the maximum permissible price increase would be Rs. 110.

Years01.01.201401.01.201501.01.201601.01.201701.01.201801.01.201901.01.2020
  Actual MRP100100100100100110121

How should the overcharged amount be calculated, in the event of default by a pharmaceutical or medical device company?

In a hypothetical scenario, where the MRP of a non-scheduled drug or medical device was Rs. 100 in 2014, and the company decided to increase it to Rs. 161.05 in 2015 and later to 177.15 in 2020, the overcharged amount will have to be calculated as follows:

Years01.01.201401.01.201501.01.201601.01.201701.01.201801.01.201901.01.2020Total ovecharged amount
  Actual MRP100/-161.05161.05161.05161.05161.05177.15–
Permissible MRP (with 10% increase)Not applicable110121133.1146.41161.05177.15–
How NPPA calculated overcharging amount ? (Not legal)Not applicable51.0551.0551.0551.0500204.2
Overcharged amount as per Delhi High CourtNot applicable51.0540.0527.9514.6400133.69

The above table is instructive because it illustrates the incorrect methodology applied by NPPA to calculate the overcharged amount that has been routinely demanded and recovered by NPPA so far from pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

Until the Delhi High Court judgement, the NPPA demanded an amount which was excessive and incorrectly calculated (Rs. 204.2). However, after the Delhi High Court judgement, irrespective of the amount that has been calculated by the NPPA, the actual payable amount will be significantly lower than the amount demanded by NPPA (Rs. 133.69).

Impact

This particular Delhi High Court judgement on permissible price increase of drugs and medical devices will have a far-reaching impact on existing overcharging demands which have been raised by NPPA, and the demands that NPPA will raise in the future. All existing demands for overcharging raised by NPPA, which have been calculated using incorrect methodology due to incorrect interpretation of overcharging provisions of DPCO by NPPA, should be rolled back by the NPPA. A pharmaceutical or medical device company that has currently received such a demand should strongly object to the NPPA’s demand on the strength of the Delhi High Court judgement.

Pharmaceutical and medical device companies should also be careful in taking price increases for non-scheduled formulations in the future, and should not assume that they will be able to take an ‘aggregate’ price increase after a certain number of years if they haven’t availed the option to increase the price every 12 months.

Posted on

Frequently Asked Questions on the New Menu Labelling Requirement for Food Service Establishments in India

FAQs on Food menu labelling

The packaging and labelling of food items served in a food service establishment in India is regulated by The Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (“Regulations”). The Regulations were amended in August 2020 to introduce the concept of menu labelling for the first time in India. Menu labelling means the process of declaring the nutritional information, calorific value per serving, information about allergens, and the logo exhibition for vegetarian or non-vegetarian, as applicable, on the menu cards/boards/booklets of restaurants and hotels. The menu labelling directives have been in force since January 01, 2022. However, the food regulator had relaxed its stringent implementation till June 30, 2022 in order to grant some additional time to the food business operators to adopt to the menu labelling mandates. In order to ensure compliance to the Regulations, the food regulator will commence verification of the declarations by sampling food items listed on the menu cards/boards/booklets of the food business operators from July 01, 2022 onwards. Since, the date is approaching, we have put together a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) with our responses in this article to facilitate the food business operators to adopt the practice of menu labelling in a self-compliant manner.

Please note that these FAQs are based on our understanding of the law, and under no circumstances should they be regarded as legal or professional advice or an endorsement of any industry practice.

Q. What is the new menu labelling requirement?

A. Owing to an amendment to The Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 in August 2020, a new sub-regulation (2.4.6.), i.e., ‘Display of information in food service establishments’ was inserted to the existing regulation 2.4 enlisting specific requirements/restrictions on the manner of labelling. This sub-regulation mandates declaration of calorie information of food items amongst other specific labelling proclamations. This sub-regulation has introduced India to the concept of menu labelling in line with the emerging global trend towards reshaping the conventional food systems.

Q. Who does the menu labelling requirement apply to?

A. The menu labelling requirement is applicable to food service establishments either having central license or outlets at 10 or more locations. However, food service premises operating for a period of less than sixty days in a calendar year (consecutively or non-consecutively) are exempt from the menu labelling mandate irrespective of whether they possess a central license or have outlets at 10 or more locations.

Q. Which restaurants are covered by the menu labelling requirement?

A. Restaurants having a turnover of more than Rs. 20 Crores per annum or outlets at 10 or more locations have to ensure compliance with the menu labelling requirement.

Q. Do caterers also have to comply with the menu labelling requirement?

A. Yes. Caterers having a turnover of more than Rs. 20 Crores per annum or outlets at 10 or more locations have to comply with the menu labelling requirement. However, event caterers operating for a period of less than sixty days in a calendar year (consecutively or non-consecutively) are exempt from the labelling requirement.

Q. Do departmental canteens at the premises of central government institutions also have to declare information on their menu?

A. Yes. Departmental canteens at the premises of central government institutions having a turnover of more than Rs. 12 Lacs per annum are mandated to comply with the menu labelling requirement.

Q. Do food service establishments involved in preparation and serving of food at airports/seaports also have to comply with the menu labelling requirement?

A. Yes. Food service establishments involved in preparation and serving of food at airports/seaports have to comply with the menu labelling requirement.

Q. Do Restaurants/Caterers/Canteens at the premises of Railway Stations also have to comply with the menu labelling requirement?

A. Yes. Restaurants/Caterers/Canteens at the premises of Railway Stations serving food items through a menu card/board/booklet and having a turnover of more than Rs. 12 Lacs per annum have to comply with the menu labelling requirement.

Q. Are the food delivery platforms also required to comply with the menu labelling requirement?

A. Yes. The menu labelling requirement is applicable to all e-commerce food business operators to the extent it is applicable to physical food establishments, i.e., e-commerce food business operators have to display the mandated declarations on their website/platform only for food items from those establishments which have a central license or outlets at 10 or more locations. The e-commerce food business operator can either get this information directly from the respective food business operators and update it on their online platforms or implement a feature on their web and/mobile applications that allows such restaurant chains to upload and exhibit the same information for every food that is offered for sale by the restaurant on the platform of the e-commerce food business operator.

Q. Is the menu labelling requirement also applicable to food items not listed on the menu of the food service establishment?

A. No. The menu labelling mandate is not applicable to special-order items or modified meals not listed on the menu of the food service establishments. The menu labelling mandate is also not applicable to self-serve condiments that are free of charge and not listed on the menu. In addition, the menu items prepared as per the request of the customer will also not attract a menu label irrespective of the mode and manner of sale.

Q. What declarations have to be mentioned against the food items on the menu card as per the menu labelling requirement?

A. The following information has to be declared against the food items displayed on the menu cards/boards/booklets of the food service establishments in a manner compliant to the provisions of the Regulations:

  • Calorific value (in kcal per serving and serving size) including the reference information on calorie requirements to be specified verbatim as “an average active adult requires 2,000 kcal energy per day, however, calorie needs may vary”
  • Information relating to allergens
  • Logo for vegetarian or non-vegetarian
  • Nutritional information
  • Information relating to organic food or ingredients, if claimed
  • Specific labelling requirements mandated under the Regulations relating to food products containing added monosodium glutamate, artificial sweeteners, caffeine, polyols, polydextrose, and plant stanol esters

Q. How can a food business operator determine the nutritive value of the food items displayed on their menu?

A. The calorie and nutrition information for food items can be determined by the food service establishments either by a laboratory testing and a nutrient analysis method or by manual calculation using the nutritive/calorific values of each of the ingredients provided by a credible scientifically-backed source. In the latter case, the food business operator will be required to retain physical or soft copy documentation/records of all such sources relied by him for determining the nutritive value of food items for the purposes of verification by the food safety officers, as and when required. On the other hand, the laboratory testing and nutrient analysis method is usually adopted by restaurant chains preparing standardized food items with standardized ingredients and recipes across their outlets.

Q. What if the nutritive value determined by a food business operator is not entirely accurate?

A. A deviation of up to twenty-five per cent is allowed by the regulator.

Q. What is the objective behind mandating the menu labelling requirement?

A. The objective behind introduction of the menu labelling mandate is to enable the consumers to make informed choices about their food purchases and promote public health.

Q. Is there any penalty for non-compliance with the menu labelling requirement?

A. Yes. Any non-compliance with the menu labelling requirement may initially attract an improvement notice from the designated officer under Section 32 of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 directing compliance. If the food business operator fails to comply with an improvement notice, his licence may be suspended and even cancelled if the non-compliance with the improvement notice continues.

Posted on

All fertility and surrogacy clinics in India now required to obtain registration under new law

Starting April 22, 2022, all fertility clinics, gamete banks and surrogacy clinics across India will have to commence the process of applying for registration with the National ART and Surrogacy Registry.

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (which, for the sake of convenience, will be collectively referred to as “the new laws”) came into force on January 25, 2022, to regulate the fertility and surrogacy industry in India.

A National ART and Surrogacy Registry has been constituted and operationalised under the new laws, which will serve as a central database of all clinics and banks in the country. All clinics are mandatorily required to make an application for registration on the Registry website and submit it to the relevant appropriate authority for the state by June 21, 2022. It should be noted that as of today, the appropriate authority for each state has not been notified, but it is expected to be notified within the next few days.

At present, the application for registration involves declaration qualified staff, equipment and nature of procedure undertaken.

In future, clinics and banks may have to demonstrate that they meet the minimum standards of physical infrastructure, facilities, laboratory and diagnostic equipment, and specialised manpower for clinics and banks, that may be prescribed by The National Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“Board”). If clinics and banks fail to do so, the application for registration may be rejected. As on date, the Board has not yet been set up, so the minimum standards are yet to be prescribed.

Therefore, it may be pragmatic for fertility clinics, gamete banks and surrogacy clinics to make application for registration on the Registry website without delay to avoid any interruption in business and operations in future.

Posted on

Pricing Information of Medical Devices Marketed in India to be Submitted to National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) by March 10, 2021

India’s medical device price regulator has issued a direction to importers and manufacturers of 24 categories of medical device to submit price-related information, including the price at which they sell medical devices to distributors and hospitals in India, by March 10, 2021.

Background

In India, medical devices are regulated not just for quality, but also for price. The Drug (Price Control) Order 2013 (“DPCO”) regulates prices of all medical devices that are marketed in India. Some medical devices such as coronary stents, drug eluting stents, condoms and intra-uterine devices that are listed in the schedule of DPCO have their ceiling price fixed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (“NPPA”), while all other medical devices (i.e. the non-scheduled medical devices) have to abide by a restriction whereby their maximum retail price cannot increase by more than 10 per cent in any given 12-month period.

Direction

In order to ensure that medical device manufacturers and importers are complying with the requirements of DPCO, the NPPA has been given powers under DPCO to issue directions to manufacturers and importers to submit price related information. It is in furtherance of this power that NPPA has directed that the following information be submitted to it:

  • Medical device category as per risk classification published by DCGI
  • Product name or specifications
  • Brand name or description
  • Date of launch in India
  • Minimal unit of sale/retail pack size
  • Price per unit to distributor / stockist
  • Price per unit to hospital
  • Price per unit to retailer
  • Applicable GST percentage
  • Moving Annual Turnover
  • Maximum retail price for unit as on January 1 of the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 (for a few categories, only the MRP as on January 1, 2021 needs to be submitted)

A copy of the said direction is available at this link.

24 Categories of Medical Devices covered by the Direction

Disposable Hypodermic SyringesDisposable Hypodermic NeedlesDisposable Perfusion SetsIVD devices of HIV, HBsAg and HCV
CathetersIntra Ocular LensesI.V. Cannulae       Bone Cements     
Heart ValvesScalp Vein SetOrthopedic ImplantsInternal Prosthetic Replacements      
Ablation DevicesOrgan Preservative SolutionBlood Grouping SeraLigatures, Sutures and Staplers
Tubal RingsSurgical DressingsUmbilical tapes     Blood/Blood Component Bags
NebulizerBlood Pressure Monitoring DeviceDigital ThermometerGlucometer

Challenges with submitting price for retailer

There may be certain fields for which information has been requested by NPPA, but the information may not be available with the importers or manufacturers. For example, the details of price to retailer sought by NPPA may not be available since importers and manufactures typically sell to a distributor or hospital, and not directly to a retailer. In such cases where the information is not available due to the nature of the manufacturer’s or importer’s business model, the importer or manufacturer may simply submit to NPPA that the information is not available with them. The importer or manufacturer is not expected to retrieve this information from its supply chain and submit to NPPA. Being in possession of such information may in fact result in breach of anti-trust laws, as an attempt to undertake resale price maintenance.

Sale of imported medical devices marketed by marketer

Some importers import and sell directly to a marketer in India. In that case, it is the marketer who is supposed to provide this information as price related information is not available with the importer. However, the importer should ideally endorse and countersign the information submitted by marketer because the primary obligation to submit this information is with the importer. Alternatively, the importer may submit whatever information that it has and give a written undertaking along with the submission that the remainder of the information will be submitted by the marketer because the remaining information is unavailable with the importer.

Requirement of license

The direction also contains a note which states that manufacturers and importers must attach a copy of the licence obtained from the DCGI for each medical device. It may be difficult to furnish the manufacturing licence for Class A and Class B medical devices (such as Glucometer). The said licence is actually issued by State Licencing Authority of the state where the medical device is manufactured. In order to comply with the requirement of the direction, a copy of the licence issued by State Licencing Authority should be annexed in place of copy of license from DCGI.  

Format for submission

All the above information has to be certified by a qualified chartered accountant or cost accountant in a physical format, and the same information is also required to be sent in form of an Excel Sheet to the NPPA at the following email ID medicaldevices-nppa@gov.in

What should manufacturers and importers of medical device take this direction very seriously?

Any non-compliance with the direction of NPPA to submit price information may result in criminal prosecution under provisions of Essential Commodities Act of 1955.

The information will also be used to ascertain whether any manufacturer, importer or marketer has fixed the MRP of the medical device in excess of ceiling price or has increased the MRP over the permissible 10 per cent limit in a 12-month period. In both these cases, the NPPA has the power to recover the excess price paid by the end-consumer from the importer or manufacturer, and to levy a penalty for overcharging in certain cases.

That apart, the information will most likely be used by NPPA to track  or validate the market share of various medical devices and medical device manufacturers in terms of moving annual turnover (MAT) of said medical device under the submitted medical device category. If, at any time in future, a medical device is inserted in the schedule of DPCO on the grounds of essentiality to the Indian population, then the market share in terms of MAT will become an important consideration before NPPA in fixing the ceiling price that medical device.

Therefore, manufacturers and importers of the 24 categories of medical devices listed above must take this exercise seriously and submit the requisite data to the NPPA in prescribed form within timelines, both in physical and electronic format.

Posted on

Legal Considerations for Awareness Campaigns on Persons with Disabilities in India

Legal Considerations for Awareness Compaigns on Persons with Disabilities in India

Across the world, December 3 is observed as the International Day of Disabled Persons. The United Nations has designated it as a day that “aims to promote the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society and development, and to increase awareness of the situation of persons with disabilities in every aspect of political, social, economic and cultural life.”  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was signed and ratified by India, charts out a tangible path for realising this goal.

India enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act in the year 2016 pursuant to its obligations under the CRPD. The Act defines person with disability as “a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others” and specifies a total of 21 physical, intellectual and mental disabilities as well as disabilities due to chronic neurological conditions and blood disorders.

Amongst other things, the law calls for greater public awareness in a bid to break the stigma, discrimination and ostracization faced by people with disabilities. In recent years, there has been a spurt in campaigns – largely digital – aimed at a establishing a more inclusive society. While these should, without a doubt, be encouraged, there are certain legal considerations that should be kept in mind.

Web Accessibility

While this requirement is not yet embedded in the law, it seems counterintuitive to have campaigns that the primary beneficiaries do not have access to. Nonetheless, web accessibility is still in its formative stages in India. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 requires that every establishment (government and private) maintains a website that is accessible to the disabled. This mandate was scheduled to come into effect on June 15, 2019, but as of date, the Government has only released the standards for government websites, and it yet to notify the standards applicable to private entities’ websites. In addition to complying with the standards, the documents on the website must be in a text-to-speech compatible Electronic Publisher or Optical Character Reader based PDF format.

As a matter of good practice, businesses should move towards accessible websites. There are plenty of resources online, most notably the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. If not entirely, businesses may choose to incorporate at least a few of the tools and tactics to make their websites more accessible.

It should also be noted that all organisations are required to have an Equal Opportunity Policy, which outlines the measures that the organisation has taken to implement the provisions under this law. It should, inter alia, contain a statement verifying that it has the requisite barrier-free accessibility, facilities, amenities and assistive devices that are required for a person with disability to be able to discharge their duties, thereby making it an inclusive organisation. This policy should be displayed on the business’ website, or, if they do not have a website, in a conspicuous location within the premises.

Data Protection

The extent to which data protection is an applicable varies largely depending on the nature of the campaign. If it’s an entirely social- or programmatic-based campaign, the entity organising the campaign gets access to only aggregated and anonymised data, which does not demand a high level of compliance. If the campaign directs the user to a website where they need to register, however, it is far more onerous. The website must contain a detailed privacy policy – ideally optimised to be accessible for persons with disabilities – outlining the data that is being collected, the purpose of its collection, who it will be shared with and why, how it will be protected, and how the person may withdraw their consent for the collection, processing and storage of such data. Given the sensitive nature of the data, strong security systems should be implemented.

Community Guidelines

Social media has come to be synonymous with the freedom of speech and expression, which has made it a catalyst for change. In the last few years alone, a number of movements have been waged and amplified over the internet. However, most platforms have strict policies which specify the type of content that is permitted and prohibited on the platform. Most policies unequivocally prevent any type of content that can be viewed as or that promotes bullying and harassment, hate speech, or discrimination against protected classes, which includes persons with disabilities. Content that can be considered triggering is also generally discouraged. We recommend going through the relevant platform’s community guidelines and tailoring the content to ensure that it does not violate or promote violations, since that may diminish the reach of the post.

Targeting Content

While targeting a campaign specifically at relevant stakeholders is one of the biggest USPs of digital campaigns, there are certain restrictions in place that would hamper a campaign with persons with disabilities as their target group.

Google’s (and YouTube’s) policy states that “Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services” and clarifies that this includes disabilities, even when content is oriented toward the user’s primary caretaker.

 Similarly, Facebook’s policy states that “Ads must not contain content that asserts or implies personal attributes. This includes direct or indirect assertions or implications about a person’s race, ethnic origin, religion, beliefs, age, sexual orientation or practices, gender identity, disability, medical condition (including physical or mental health), financial status, voting status, membership in a trade union, criminal record, or name.”

Unintended Consequences of the Comment Section 

The comment section for posts about social justice issues like disability are often filled with an overwhelming amount of compassion, with complete strangers bonding over their struggles and experiences. While fostering a strong sense of community is aspirational, it is not without risk. The most obvious is the strong likelihood of hate speech erupting: which is not only undesirable on a humane level, but also a violation of platform policies and the law. Secondly, it results in the somewhat inadvertent collection and sharing of highly sensitive personal data, that can be misused by absolutely anyone to discriminate against persons with disabilities. While these issues may not have direct legal ramifications for the campaign organiser or poster specifically, they are highly undesirable. We would recommend seriously considering the pros and cons of keeping the comments section disabled (no pun intended whatsoever).

Testimonials

A great deal of caution must be used while using testimonials from persons with disabilities, their family, friends or caretakers, or medical and allied healthcare professions. Waivers should be obtained, in writing, prior to using such content. Personal information of persons with disabilities should not be disclosed unless explicitly consented to, and even then, should be avoided. While collaborating with medical or allied healthcare professionals, ensure that the content is not positioned as medical advice, a diagnosis or a tool for self-diagnosis. Encourage viewers to seek professional help if required. Most importantly, ensure that persons with disabilities are not shown in a bad light.

Conclusion

To conclude, it would be unpragmatic to not use the platforms that we have access to today to spread awareness about the many issues that plague society, and to work towards a better tomorrow. However, exercise caution while doing so to avoid inadvertently violating the law.

Posted on

Legality of use of CBD Oil in India, and why NDPS Act does not apply to it

CBD Oil Legality India

Recreational use of Cannabis (Ganja) and its resin (Charas or Hashish) was outlawed in India in 1985 by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The NDPS Act itself was the result of India’s commitment under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (“Single Convention”). Interestingly, neither the NDPS Act nor the Single Convention outlawed the medical use of cannabis. Nevertheless, medical use of cannabis is almost non-existent in India.

The ground reality is that most State Governments in India are reluctant to issue a license to cultivate and grow cannabis, even though the NDPS Act empowers them to do so. Therefore, almost all cannabis that manufacturers of cannabis-based medicines have access to grows in the wild. Because the cannabis plant grows in the wild with little to no human intervention, there is very little scope for quality control and standardization of the cannabis, which is essential to manufacture a cannabis-based medicine. This poses a big challenge for manufacturers and discourages them from manufacturing cannabis-based medicines at a meaningful scale.

The NDPS Act, however, does not apply to the leaves and seeds of cannabis plant when they are separated from the flowering or fruiting tops of the plant, which are its most intoxicating parts. This is why Bhang (cannabis plant leaf) is sold freely in most States in India, subject of course to Excise Control, since it is still an intoxicant.

As the leaves of cannabis plant are relatively easy to access, there is massive potential for its use in medicine. One of the key chemicals (or cannabinoids) present in cannabis, including in its leaves, is CBD or Cannabidiol. CBD possesses medicinal properties, but not narcotic properties. The World Health Organization (WHO) itself has recommended its exclusion from Single Convention because it “does not have psychoactive properties and has no potential for abuse and no potential to produce dependence”.

Most CBD Oils sold in India (including over internet) are in fact made out of full-spectrum extracts of the leaves of the cannabis plant, meaning they contain all the cannabinoids, including CBD, that are present in the leaves. Since the leaves of cannabis plant are not considered to be a narcotic drug, CBD Oil made out of extract of the leaves should also not be treated as narcotic drug. In other words, consumption of CBD Oil manufactured from leaves of the cannabis plant should not attract provisions of the NDPS Act.   

In fact, CBD Oil manufactured under a license issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 may be legitimately used by individuals for medical purposes in India.

It is easy to confuse CBD oil with cannabis or hash oil, but the two are vastly different, both in terms of pharmacology and legal treatment: cannabis or hash oil, unlike CBD oil, is 100% narcotic and is subject to strict monitoring and control in India as per provisions of NDPS Act. Its consumption may also attract provisions of NDPS Act and may result in imprisonment.

Posted on

Indian Law on advertisement of brand extensions of alcohol and tobacco products and how it poised to become tougher

India’s Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) recently put out an advisory for private satellite TV channels to ensure that liquor, tobacco and other intoxicants are not advertised directly or indirectly on their channels in violation of existing law, i.e. the Cable Television Network Rules, 1995 (CTNR). Under CTNR, satellite TV channels are prohibited from carrying out an advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes sale or consumption of liquor, wine, cigarettes and tobacco products.

However, advertisement of brand extensions of liquor and tobacco products is permitted under CTNR, provided the product sold under the brand extension does not make direct or indirect references to the prohibited product, it is distributed in reasonable quantity and is available in a substantial number of outlets, and the proposed expenditure on the advertisement of the brand extension product is not disproportionate to the actual sales turn-over of that product.

The enforcement of the provisions of CTNR has been indirectly delegated to a self-regulated industry body called Advertisement Standards Council of India (ASCI) by way of an amendment to CTNR that prohibits TV channels from running any advertisement that violates ASCI’s Code of Self-Regulation in Advertising (ASCI Code). The ASCI Code has a section titled “Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service”, which as the name suggests, sets out the standards for what would pass as a brand extension and what would not.

As per the ASCI Code, for an advertisement to qualify as a genuine brand extension advertisement (i.e., by implication, not a surrogate advertisement), the in-store availability of the product sold under the brand extension must be at least 10% of the leading brand in the product category OR sales turn-over of the product must exceed INR 5 Crore (50 million) annually or INR 1 Crore (10 million) in the state where the product is distributed. This is a fairly high threshold by Indian standards and many leading brands, including those that put out Music CDs, have been unable to achieve them.

Consequently, some advertisers of liquor and tobacco products have turned to the internet as a media to advertise brand extensions. This is primarily because the CTNR does not apply to advertisements over the internet, there are no clear guidelines for content regulation over the internet, and until very recently, ASCI did not actively track advertisements over the internet.

This is set to change soon. Under the newly notified Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA), the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has the power to investigate manufacturers and services providers for misleading advertisement and impose a penalty up to INR 10 lakh (1 million) for the first violation and up to 50 lakh (5 million) for a subsequent violation. The scope of advertisement coved by CPA extends to advertisements over the internet, including in the electronic media, and therefore would cover misleading advertisements made over the internet or electronic media. The CCPA has recently published a draft of Central Consumer Protection Authority (Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Necessary Due Diligence for Endorsement of Advertisements) Guidelines, 2020 (Draft Guidelines) to discuss what it would consider to be a misleading advertisement. Surrogate advertisements are deemed to be misleading advertisement under the Draft Guidelines, and therefore will be prohibited once the Draft Guidelines are finalized.

The Draft Guidelines do make an exception for brand extension. An advertisement of brand extension will be permitted only if “the advertisement is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used, and the markets targeted”. In absence of any specification on what would constitute “reasonable quantity”, it is quite likely that CCPA may refer to the ASCI Code to determine what is “reasonable” for the industry, after all, ASCI is a self-regulatory body of the industry. In the event that happens, the high current thresholds for ‘genuineness’ of brand extension advertisement under ASCI Code will be extended for determination of “misleading advertisement” under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and that may make advertisement of brand extensions more difficult in India than it already is.

Posted on

Draft risk classification of all yet-to-be regulated medical devices and IVDs in India published, comments invited until Oct. 2

In February of this year, India’s Health Ministry had notified a new definition of medical devices with an intent to bring all medical devices under the purview of Medical Devices Rules, 2017 (MDR). Prior to such notification, only 37 categories of medical devices that it had notified were regulated by MDR. The new definition took effect from April 1, 2020, which means that MDR started applying to all medical devices from April 1, 2020. However, an exemption from applicability of MDR was added until August 11, 2022 for Class A (low risk) and Class B (low-medium risk) medical devices, and until August 11, 2023 for Class C (medium-high risk) and Class D (high risk) medical devices, in order give time to industry to acclimatize itself to the new regulatory framework of MDR and to obtain appropriate medical device quality certification such as ISO 13485 from designated certifying bodies.

After the development in February, since MDR regulates medical devices on the basis of their risk classification, there was always a question as to how will these yet-to-be regulated or (more appropriately) newly regulated medical devices will be classified. Unlike most countries, risk classification of medical devices is determined in India by the regulator, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), itself as per parameters of risk classification stipulated in First Schedule of MDR, and there is no room for dialogue or consultation with the regulator once the risk classification has been concluded.

The DCGI has now done its preliminary assessment and published a draft of medical device risk classification covering all medical devices for public comments. Medical devices have been split into 24 categories (Anethesiology, Pain Management, Cardiovascular, Dental, ENT, Gastroenterlogical, Urological, General Hospital, Operation Theatre, Respiratory, Neurological, Personnel Use, Obstetrical and Gynecological, Ophthalmic, Rehabilitation, Physical support, Interventional and Radiology, Rheumatology, Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, Pediatric and Neonatology Medical, Oncology, Radiotherapy, Nephrology and Renal care and Software). IVD devices have been split into 3 categories (IVD Analyzer, IVD Instrument and IVD Software).

There are some surprises in the risk classification. Sanitary pads, menstrual cups and tampons are sought to be regulated as medical devices. Fertility and conception software are sought to be regulated as medical devices. Birthing bath and new-born infant bed are also sought to be regulated as medical devices.

It is extremely important that the impacted companies review the draft risk classification and provide comments to DCGI before October 2, 2020 regarding either the inapplicability of law i.e. MDR to their products, or the inappropriateness of risk classification assigned by DCGI. Once the risk classification is finalized, it may not be revised for some time. Also, once MDR starts applying to a medical device, other laws such as Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 will also start applying to such medical device.

Posted on

Dedicated portal for online filing of consumer grievances under new consumer protection law in India now live

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) was enforced on July 20, 2020 and it replaced the decades old The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. One of the key features of the CPA is the option with consumers to file a complaint electronically. The portal where consumers can file their complaint electronically is now live at the following URL: https://edaakhil.nic.in/ and will be formally inaugurated on September 18, 2020.

It has step-by-step instructional manuals for consumers on how to register, file a consumer complaint, file written response (as opposite party), file a rejoinder to a complaint, file first appeal and so on. There is no need for consumers to file brief of written arguments if consumers are representing themselves. The said portal will initially accept filing for matters before the State Commissions and the National Commission and not for matters before District Commission, meaning that it will only accept complaints where the consideration for good or services paid exceeds one crore (Rupees 10 million), or where an appeal has been preferred against an order of District Commission.

Needless to mention, the portal will accept filing from advocates who represent consumers before a consumer commission as well.

Posted on

Legality of making COVID-19 defence or immunity claims in India

India’s central drug regulator, the Drugs Controller General of India, has reportedly served a notice on a major FMCG company in India to explain why action should not be taken against it for making a misleading claim that its hand sanitizer is a “immunity booster” and that it “kills inactive coronavirus”. This points to an increasing trend amongst FMCG Companies who are making COVID-19 or corona virus related claims to capture the hygiene market. The basis for these claims are various World Health Organization (WHO) and scientific reports that have found that ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol is effective in killing the viruses of corona virus family (including SARS-CoV-2) when used over a certain concentration. However, these tests are done in strict laboratory condition and the viruses are exposed to the active ingredients over a period of time to yield result, which does not typically happen in everyday usage of the product. More importantly, it may not be proper to “logically” extend the findings of external scientific reports to any formulation that carries the same active ingredient as the laboratory drug, for the simple reason that in the event of an inquiry, it will be almost impossible for a company to actually test its product for “immunity” or “killing” properties against corona viruses as these viruses are not available in private labs for testing and are generally considered as health and environmental hazards. Therefore, a very clear assessment of risks versus benefit must be done before making a COVID-19 or corona virus related claim for a formulation. In fact, India’s regulator for alternative systems of medicine (Ministry of AYUSH) has expressly prohibited advertisement for COVID-19 treatment by alternative system of medicines (such as Ayurveda and Homeopathy). And, as such, even for making claims such as “kills upto 99.99% germs”, a company must first check whether its formulation is able to satisfy the claim by testing its formulation in a recognized laboratory as per prescribed international standards