LALLAN KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN, PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged Clause 3 of Forms 20 and 21 published in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 61(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") which makes it mandatory to disclose the name(s) of qualified person(s) in-charge.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ application is on the ground that the petitioner is a retail seller of Allopathic medicine manufactured by the licensed manufacturers under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the rules framed there-under. The petitioner asserts that he sells the medicines received from the manufacturers of Allopathic medicines in the same packing without compounding, mixing or dispensing of medicines by raw hands. Since the medicines are prescribed by the registered medical practitioners with patent names, therefore, there is no requirement of a licensed Pharmacist to dispense the medicines.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the Pharmacy Council of India is that the role of a Pharmacist is to ensure that the patient's drug therapy is appropriately indicated, the most effective, the safest possible and convenient for the patient. The role of the Pharmacist has become even more important as he is the common point of contact between the patient and doctor and is trained to play a key role both in disease prevention and drug safety. New drug discovery/research has led to introduction of new drug molecules and novel drug delivery systems. The prescribing pattern has changed. Multi drug regiment is the way of treatment leading to lot of cases of not only drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions but also drug induced diseases putting the life of patient at risk. It is, thus, contended that the drugs cannot be sold in terms of Sec. 42 of the Pharmacy Act other than by a registered Pharmacist. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 981 of 1994 (Ramesh Giri, Proprietor, M/s Goswami Medical Stores Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 29th of Jan., 1996 wherein identical issue raised has been decided and it has been held that the drugs cannot be permitted to be sold by a person other than the Pharmacist.