The Madras High Court will hear the case challenging the online sale of medicines through e-pharmacies next on November 19..Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana posted the case for the said date after hearing brief submissions made for the petitioner, as well as the intermediaries and online pharmacy companies..Senior Advocate ARL Sunderasan appeared for the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Union. Senior Advocates PS Raman, PR Raman, Satish Parasaran and MS Krishnan, among others, appeared on behalf of the intermediaries and licensed e-pharmacies..Notably, the opposing parties today questioned whether the petitioner could approach the Court with a fresh petition on the issue, when a similar case is already pending..It was argued that the only novel aspect raised in the instant petition is the notification of draft rules to regulate the online sale of medicines..However, echoing arguments raised by the other parties present, Parasaran queried whether the notification of new rules could usher in a new cause of action, when a similar petition is already pending..Parasaran, who appears for an intermediary, argued that his client only facilitates the delivery of medicines from registered pharmacies. Simplifying his argument, he commented,.“We are like the Swiggy of medicines.”.By thereby facilitating better access to medicines, particularly for disabled patients, Parasaran submitted that the services offered were in the interest of patients..Krishnan pointed out that there is no need to stop such sale, which has been continuing for the past three years, even after the filing of the earlier writ petition. He submitted that the intermediary only connects patients with registered pharmacies, rather than undertaking the sale by itself. Therefore, as far as intermediaries are concerned, there is no need to obtain a licence. At the same time, he assured the judge that a prescription by a registered medical practitioner is mandatory before the sale is allowed..On the other hand, he observed, it is easier to obtain medicines without a prescription when purchased over the counter. Krishnan also offered to give an undertaking to the Court that the medicines would only be dispensed from registered practitioners..Sundaresan however asserted that contrary to the claims made, the opposing parties were involved in the actual sale of medicines. This, he said, was evident by claims previously made in an affidavit (later stated to be struck out) that their stocks would expire if sale is discontinued. The existence of stocks, he said, would indicate that they are selling the medicines..The opposing intermediaries and online companies had sought to be impleaded to the case after Justice R Mahadevan granted an ex parte interim stay on the unlicensed sale of medicines online shortly before the Deepavali break..On the last working day before the break, the Court allowed their impleadment, after assuring them that the ban only applies to unlicensed sale of online medicines..Following a roster change, the matter is now listed before Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana..Corrigendum: The article had erroneously mentioned that it was Justice M Duraiswamy who had passed an earlier order in the case. The error has been rectified and is regretted.
The Madras High Court will hear the case challenging the online sale of medicines through e-pharmacies next on November 19..Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana posted the case for the said date after hearing brief submissions made for the petitioner, as well as the intermediaries and online pharmacy companies..Senior Advocate ARL Sunderasan appeared for the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Union. Senior Advocates PS Raman, PR Raman, Satish Parasaran and MS Krishnan, among others, appeared on behalf of the intermediaries and licensed e-pharmacies..Notably, the opposing parties today questioned whether the petitioner could approach the Court with a fresh petition on the issue, when a similar case is already pending..It was argued that the only novel aspect raised in the instant petition is the notification of draft rules to regulate the online sale of medicines..However, echoing arguments raised by the other parties present, Parasaran queried whether the notification of new rules could usher in a new cause of action, when a similar petition is already pending..Parasaran, who appears for an intermediary, argued that his client only facilitates the delivery of medicines from registered pharmacies. Simplifying his argument, he commented,.“We are like the Swiggy of medicines.”.By thereby facilitating better access to medicines, particularly for disabled patients, Parasaran submitted that the services offered were in the interest of patients..Krishnan pointed out that there is no need to stop such sale, which has been continuing for the past three years, even after the filing of the earlier writ petition. He submitted that the intermediary only connects patients with registered pharmacies, rather than undertaking the sale by itself. Therefore, as far as intermediaries are concerned, there is no need to obtain a licence. At the same time, he assured the judge that a prescription by a registered medical practitioner is mandatory before the sale is allowed..On the other hand, he observed, it is easier to obtain medicines without a prescription when purchased over the counter. Krishnan also offered to give an undertaking to the Court that the medicines would only be dispensed from registered practitioners..Sundaresan however asserted that contrary to the claims made, the opposing parties were involved in the actual sale of medicines. This, he said, was evident by claims previously made in an affidavit (later stated to be struck out) that their stocks would expire if sale is discontinued. The existence of stocks, he said, would indicate that they are selling the medicines..The opposing intermediaries and online companies had sought to be impleaded to the case after Justice R Mahadevan granted an ex parte interim stay on the unlicensed sale of medicines online shortly before the Deepavali break..On the last working day before the break, the Court allowed their impleadment, after assuring them that the ban only applies to unlicensed sale of online medicines..Following a roster change, the matter is now listed before Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana..Corrigendum: The article had erroneously mentioned that it was Justice M Duraiswamy who had passed an earlier order in the case. The error has been rectified and is regretted.
