Union government needs to clearly define the ambit of the herbal drugs and non-prescription products used by the general public, said Philipe Haydon, CEO, The Himalaya Drug Company.
“Majority of doctors advocate the integration of the two systems of medicine namely Ayurveda and allopathy but due to confusion over regulations, they are reluctant to prescribe ayurvedic products. This is detrimental to the growth of the Indian system of medicine but more importantly, it restricts the choice of patients who can benefit from holistic treatment options,” Haydon told Pharmabiz.
The Himalaya Drug Company has drugs that can provide relief to patients suffering from lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension among others, he added.
In a communication to the department of Ayush and the Union ministry of health, The Himalaya Drug Company stated “The Delhi Medical Council (DMC) said that doctors of modern medicine should not prescribe ayurvedic drugs. The notification has wrongfully interpreted Section 30 of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998.”
“Section 30 states that false assumption of practitioner under this Act to be an offence. Any person who falsely assumes that he is a practitioner as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 and practices the Bhartiya Chikitsa (Indian System of Medicine) shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to three years and with fine which may extend up to fifty thousand rupees”, stated the note from the company.
Under this section, punishment can be awarded only to practitioners as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of this Act and no punishment may be awarded to anyone practicing veterinary medicine or veterinary surgery or homoeopathic or modern scientific system of medicine. Section 2(k) of The Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 defines a practitioner as a medical practitioner who practises the Bharatiya Chikitsa Paddhati (Indian System of Medicine), stated the note from the company.
“As per regulations, since Ayurveda products are classified under non-schedule drugs, any doctor in India should have the legal right to recommend it to his/her patients. When this is the prevailing legal and regulatory position, notifications such as the one issued by the DMC contradict this and impede the acceptance of Ayurveda. In fact, doctors with their informed medical opinion should be encouraged to look for the best treatment options even if it comes from complementary and alternative systems of medicine,” pointed out Haydon.
“It is also relevant to mention that Supreme Court in a landmark case, Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors versus State of Punjab empowered State Governments to issue a notification permitting doctors of traditional medicine to practice and prescribe allopathic medicine. Hence, it would be prudent to assume that when the Supreme Court has upheld a notification conferring the right on an ayurvedic practitioner to prescribe allopathic medicines, there is absolutely no reason why a different yardstick should be applied to an allopathic practitioner prescribing ayurvedic drugs, said Haydon.
In the case of Himalaya, its Liv-52 and Rumalaya are recommended by the allopathy doctors as an adjuvant. If the confusion on the cross prescription is sorted out then there could be a comprehensive relief option for the growing patient population, said Haydon.