New Delhi: Sanjeev Sanyal, economist and member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, on Monday, said those concerned about USAID’s interference in Indian elections should be equally concerned about USAID’s tentacles in India’s medical system and social policies.Sanjeev Sanyal raised concerns about the influence of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on India’s health system and social policies, particularly through its involvement with the National Family Health Survey (NFHS).Sanyal said that USAID’s role in conducting and shaping the survey from the 1990s until two years ago has had significant implications for both India’s medical data and its health policies.In a post on X on Monday, Sanyal wrote, “Those concerned about USAID’s interference in Indian elections should be equally concerned about USAID’s tentacles in India’s medical system and social policies. USAID effectively ran India’s National Family Health Survey (NFHS) from the 1990s till it was stopped two years ago. This is the most important medical dataset in India and drives a lot of health policy.”He added, “Not only were we allowing a foreign agency to harvest our medical data but, by allowing them to design surveys and direct analysis, we were letting them influence our national health responses”, news agency ANI reported.Also Read:Union Health Minister releases 5th National family health Survey report at ‘Swasthya Chintan Shivir’He also pointed out that the NFHS questionnaire was “skewed” to support social narratives, particularly around issues of domestic violence.”Equally worryingly, much of the NFHS questionnaire was deliberately skewed to support certain social narratives. The questionnaire for men, for instance, is only 29 pages but that for women is 94 pages. A lot of the additional questions are deliberately worded to elicit a narrative of intra-family violence against Indian women. Must say, very slyly done,” Sanyal said.He added, “Readers will recall that late Bibek Debroy and I strongly pushed back against this (including publicly in newspaper columns). Fortunately, GoI took up the matter and the latest NFHS is being done by the Health Ministry on its own. Some people are asking why the USAID did the the 2019-21 NFHS survey and was not removed earlier. Well, it is not so easy to upturn a well established system that went back decades. It takes time to recognise a problem, and build capability to replace it. Nonetheless, GoI has been tightening FCRA over the last decade despite many howls of protest. One can only do more when the Overton Window has moved. The DOGE revelations about USAID has hopefully done that.”On February 16, Sanyal in another post wrote, “Would love to find out who received the US$21mn spent to improve “voter turnout in India” and the US$29mn to “strengthening political landscape in Bangladesh”; not to mention the US$29mn spend to improve “fiscal federalism” in Nepal. USAID is the biggest scam in human history.”Recently, US President Donald Trump criticised the US Agency for International Development (USAID), claiming that the agency’s handling of funds is “fraudulently and unexplainable” and said that the agency should “close down.””USAID is driving the radical left crazy, and there is nothing they can do about it because how the money has been spent, so much of it fraudulently, is unexplainable. The corruption is at levels rarely seen before. Close it down,” Trump wrote on X, reports ANI.Earlier on Sunday, BJP leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar had slammed USAID over its funding allocations in South Asia, including USD 21 million intended for increasing voter turnout in India.Describing the expenditure as a “smoking gun of interference”, Chandrasekhar said it undermines democratic nations under the guise of promoting democratic values.The BJP leader was responding to a post by the Department of Government Efficiency, which outlined a list of expenditures funded by US taxpayer dollars–all of which have now been cancelled.Also Read:Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan launches 50 Family Health Centres read more

New Delhi: Upholding the doctors’ liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Supreme Court bench recently dismissed a review petition filed against the previous order through which the Apex Court had refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha.In the 1995 judgment, the top court bench had held that the doctors and medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019). In the judgment, the apex court ruled that services rendered by doctors and medical practitioners are covered under the Act if they are paid services.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan ordered,”Having perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition…The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that last year in May, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had pointed the requirement of revising the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha. Back then, the Supreme Court bench had requested the Chief Justice of India to refer the Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha to a larger bench for reconsideration.Also Read: Lawyers exempt from CPA, doctors not: SC calls for revisitation of judgment that brought doctors under Consumer Protection ActThe judgment in question in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others was delivered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. It was held by the Apex Court that the wide amplitude of the definition of ‘service’ in the main part of Section 2(1) (o) would cover the services rendered by Medical Practitioners within the said Section 2(1)(o).Section 2(1)(o) of The Consumer Protection Act says, “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.In the 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court bench had concluded that service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.”The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act,” Supreme Court had held in the 1995 order.However, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal had observed that the 1995 judgment required reconsideration “having regard to the history, object, purpose and the scheme of the CP Act and in view of the opinion expressed by us hereinabove to the effect that neither the “Profession” could be treated as “business” or “trade” nor the services provided by the “Professionals” could be treated at par with the services provided by the Businessmen or the Traders, so as to bring them within the purview of the CP Act.”The Court made such observation while considering a batch of pleas concerning the legal question of whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019.However, later, an Apex Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. The bench also questioned the necessity of making such a reference in respect of another profession since the Court had already held that the legal profession was sui generis. Accordingly, the top court bench refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha.”We find that the issue before the Court was with regards to the legal profession and Court in unequivocal terms came to a conclusion that the legal profession is not covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since the Court came to the aforesaid finding, irrespective of the finding of this Court in Shantha, the reference was not necessary. The question as to whether the other professionals excluding legal profession could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act can be considered in appropriate cases, having a factual foundation… In view of the matter, we dispose of the reference,” the bench had ordered.Filing the present plea, the Medico-Legal Society of India sought a review of this order. However, the top court bench comprising Justices B.R.Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan found no reason to entertain this plea and accordingly dismissed it.To view the top court order, click on the link below:https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-cpa-274910.pdfAlso Read: Major setback to medical fraternity! Doctors Still Liable under Consumer Protection Act read more

Mumbai: Piramal Pharma has announced that the Company has received six observations from US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) at the conclusion of the inspection at the Turbhe facility.The US FDA conducted General GMP inspection from 11th February, 2025 to 17th February, 2025.”On conclusion of the inspection, a Form-483 was issued with 6 observations. Observations
are largely around improvement of procedures and practices and not related to data integrity,” the Company stated.An FDA Form 483 is issued to firm management at the conclusion of an inspection when an investigator(s) has observed any conditions that in their judgment may constitute violations of the Food Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act and related Acts.Read also: Sarosh Shetty to join Piramal Pharma as Interim – CEO of India Consumer Healthcare business, Nitish Bajaj resigns”The Company is preparing a detailed response to said observations, which will be submitted
to agency within stipulated timelines.
The Company remains committed to maintain a highest standards of compliance and is
confident of effective closure of observations,” Piramal Pharma said in a BSE filing.Read also: Piramal Critical Care launches Chlorpromazine Hydrochloride for Injection in USPiramal Pharma Limited (PPL) offers a portfolio of differentiated products and services through end-to-end manufacturing capabilities across 15 global facilities and a global distribution network in over 100 countries. PPL includes Piramal Pharma Solutions (PPS), an integrated Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization; Piramal Critical Care (PCC), a Complex Hospital Generics business, and the India Consumer Healthcare business selling over-the-counter products.PPS offers end-to-end development and manufacturing solutions through a globally integrated network of facilities across the drug life cycle to innovators and generic companies. PCC’s complex hospital product portfolio includes inhalation anaesthetics, intrathecal therapies for spasticity and pain management, injectable pain and anaesthetics, injectable anti-infectives, and other therapies.In addition, PPL has a joint venture with Allergan. In October 2020, the company received a growth equity investment from the Carlyle Group.Read also: Piramal Pharma Reports Over Fourfold Surge in Q2 Net Profit to Rs 23 Crore, Announces Expansion Plans read more