Pharmaceutical advertising in India is mainly regulated under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, under which the Drug Rules, 1945, have been framed. More recently, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations have also played a role in regulating medical advertisements. Despite these rules and watchdogs, the limits on medical advertising have been a grey area in India with rules that range between outright bans and a wide degree of latitude. For instance, the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules forbid advertisements by practising doctors and of allopathic drugs that come under prescription-only rules. In 2018, Rule 170 was added to prohibit misleading advertisements of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani drugs. In fact, the Supreme Court’s observation was made during the hearing of a case involving a plea moved by the Indian Medical Association against ayurvedic products maker Patanjali’s advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases.
No less concerning, however, is the wide latitude given to private hospitals, clinical establishments (such as maternity homes and in-vitro fertilisation centres), and diagnostic centres, often part of large corporate chains that make extravagant claims. Asci alone has reported some 190 misleading claims by hospitals and clinics in the past three years. These are claims that have been examined by the regulatory authorities; thousands of other clinics, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, get away scot-free. Since private hospitals and clinics largely play similar roles in healing and curing diseases as doctors and prescription drugs, it may be appropriate for the government to impose stricter limits on the nature of information that can be disclosed in advertisements. Advertising of medical devices and over-the-counter drugs may be another area that merits more scrutiny.
To make these rules effective, the government needs to work on a robust institutional mechanism that has the resources to monitor medical advertising proactively (including on the internet), inform consumers of transgression, impose penalties on errant entities, and award compensation for consumers. Such an approach should preclude the long-drawn process of legal remedies through the country’s glacial justice system. The Patanjali case received traction because the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association, was a powerful institution. But most consumers lack the wherewithal for such expensive cases. The Supreme Court has offered an opportunity to constructively address this gap in the consumer-protection apparatus.
 "pharma")
