Divya Pharmacy, attached to Uttarakhand-headquartered Patanjali Yogpeeth, has withdrawn advertisements of its Ayurvedic products after they were found to have violated provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
This was after the Union AYUSH Ministry and the AYUSH Department of the Uttarakhand government made it clear that violation of the Act would invite action. An authorised representative of Divya Pharmacy said in a letter to the Licensing Officer, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, that they had received official notices alleging that the ads have been found to be “objectionable and misleading” under the provisions of the Act and Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The medicines were Divya Lipidom Tablet, Divya Livogrit Tablet, Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet, Divya Madhunashini Vati and Divya Madhunshini Tablet. “... taking note of your captioned notice(s), the undersigned has immediately stopped publication of the impugned advertisements,” the letter from Divya Pharmacy, dated May 7, said.
The Union AYUSH Ministry had earlier advised drug licensing authorities in Karnataka, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand to take “necessary action” on complaints that the pharma company was promoting products for heart diseases and liver disorders through illegal advertisements.
It was Kannur-based ophthalmologist K.V. Babu, who managed to get documents revealing these under the Right to Information Act. “By withdrawing the ads, Divya Pharmacy is indirectly admitting that they had violated laws. In future as well, any ads on 54 scheduled drugs of under the Act will invite action,” Dr. Babu said.
Dr. Babu had in February complained to V.G. Somani, Drugs Controller General of India, against one of the advertisements which said the product protects one from “heart problems and blood pressure” by “reducing cholesterol in a week”. This was cited as a violation of Section 3 of the Act that prohibited advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders. Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug.
The complaint was forwarded to the Union AYUSH Ministry’s drug policy section, which said it was already looking into similar complaints from elsewhere that had been brought to its notice. The Ministry said that its National Pharmacovigilance Centre had noticed other advertisements by the same pharma major and that State Licensing Authorities in Rajasthan and Karnataka had been issued similar directives. Two other advertisements placed by the company had claimed that “evidence-based medicines” would help patients get “instant benefit in problems related to fatty liver, liver cirrhosis, and the digestive system.”
