NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and the manufacturer of the drug Risdiplam, which is used for the treatment of the rare disorder spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), whether the medication can be offered at a lower price in India, if it is supplied to the neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan and China, at a cheaper rate.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and K V Viswanathan sought a response from the Centre and the drug manufacturer on the issue.
The court was apprised about the drug prices from the senior counsel, Anand Grover, appearing for a 24-year-old woman from Kerala, Seba, suffering from a Group III rare disease—SMA. The drug was being sold at a cheaper rate by M/s. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, the drug manufacturer, in Pakistan and China compared to India.
While noting that several patients are suffering from the disorder in India, the top court fixed the matter for further hearing next week.
Advocate Grover told the bench that Risdiplam is sold at a whopping price of around Rs 6 lakhs in India, whereas it was being sold at a much cheaper price in Pakistan and China at Rs 41,000 and Rs 45,000 per bottle, respectively. This was might because of the intervention of govts of those countries.
“Why can’t the Indian govt negotiate with the manufacturer to bring the price down or produce it as a generic drug to reduce the exorbitant cost of treatment,” he argued.
Grover further added that in India, there may be thousands of families where patients are affected by this disease. Due to a lack of infrastructure, the ailment is left undetected.
Earlier on February 24, the top court stayed a Kerala HC order asking the Centre to provide medicines worth Rs 18 lakh to Seba over and above the Rs 50 lakh which such patients are entitled to under a Central government scheme.
The Centre approached the top court to challenge the HC’s order. The SC, in its order, said the impugned judgement shall stay in operation until the next hearing date. However, the petitioners may examine the request made on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Seba) as permissible in law.