Duty of Pharmacy Council, state govt to see that hospitals are dealt with by registered pharmacists: SC
4 min readExpress News Service
NEW DELHI: Remarking that working pretend hospitals, dispensaries and medical shops can finally have an effect on the well being of residents, the Supreme Court has noticed that it’s the responsibility of the Pharmacy Council and state governments to see that hospitals/medical shops are dealt with by the registered pharmacist solely.
“Running the hospitals/dispensaries in absence of any registered pharmacist and/or running such hospitals by fake pharmacists and even running the medical stores by fake pharmacists and without even any pharmacist will ultimately affect the health of the citizen. The State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council cannot be permitted to play with the health and life of the citizen,” a bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh remarked.
The courtroom’s order got here in a plea in opposition to Patna HC’s order of dismissing the PIL which had sought to solely permit registered Pharmacists to compound, put together, combine or dispense any medication on the prescription of any medical practitioner.
The plea earlier than the HC had said that hospitals and individuals who aren’t registered pharmacists comparable to clerks, ANMs, and employees nurses have been additionally discharging features of a pharmacist. Against this backdrop, the plea had additionally hunted for issuance of mandatory instructions for the implementation of Pharmacy Practice Regulation, 2015 framed by the Pharmacy Council of India.
The petition additionally sought for steering the Bihar Government to create posts aside from a Pharmacist and likewise appoint eligible individuals to realize the target of Pharmacy Practice Regulation, 2015.
Disapproving the way during which the HC rejected the PIL, the bench mentioned High Court didn’t train the powers vested in it beneath Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“Serious allegations were made against the Bihar State Pharmacy Council and the State of Bihar for not taking any action with respect to fake pharmacists and/or running the Government’s hospitals and/or other hospitals without registered pharmacist and the in-action on the part of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council/State Government has resulted into the affected health of the citizen, the High Court ought to have called upon the Bihar State Pharmacy Council to file the status report on the allegations of fake pharmacist and/or on how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals in the State are running without registered pharmacist,” the bench mentioned.
The prime courtroom additionally requested the HC to think about the reliefs that have been sought within the PIL afresh. The courtroom additionally requested HC to name for an in depth counter from the State authorities and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on the variety of authorities, medical and personal hospitals which can be being run by pretend or unregistered pharmacists. The state authorities was additionally requested to report on the standing with reference to whether or not it was following Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 or not.
NEW DELHI: Remarking that working pretend hospitals, dispensaries and medical shops can finally have an effect on the well being of residents, the Supreme Court has noticed that it’s the responsibility of the Pharmacy Council and state governments to see that hospitals/medical shops are dealt with by the registered pharmacist solely.
“Running the hospitals/dispensaries in absence of any registered pharmacist and/or running such hospitals by fake pharmacists and even running the medical stores by fake pharmacists and without even any pharmacist will ultimately affect the health of the citizen. The State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council cannot be permitted to play with the health and life of the citizen,” a bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh remarked.
The courtroom’s order got here in a plea in opposition to Patna HC’s order of dismissing the PIL which had sought to solely permit registered Pharmacists to compound, put together, combine or dispense any medication on the prescription of any medical practitioner.
The plea earlier than the HC had said that hospitals and individuals who aren’t registered pharmacists comparable to clerks, ANMs, and employees nurses have been additionally discharging features of a pharmacist. Against this backdrop, the plea had additionally hunted for issuance of mandatory instructions for the implementation of Pharmacy Practice Regulation, 2015 framed by the Pharmacy Council of India.
The petition additionally sought for steering the Bihar Government to create posts aside from a Pharmacist and likewise appoint eligible individuals to realize the target of Pharmacy Practice Regulation, 2015.
Disapproving the way during which the HC rejected the PIL, the bench mentioned High Court didn’t train the powers vested in it beneath Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“Serious allegations were made against the Bihar State Pharmacy Council and the State of Bihar for not taking any action with respect to fake pharmacists and/or running the Government’s hospitals and/or other hospitals without registered pharmacist and the in-action on the part of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council/State Government has resulted into the affected health of the citizen, the High Court ought to have called upon the Bihar State Pharmacy Council to file the status report on the allegations of fake pharmacist and/or on how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals in the State are running without registered pharmacist,” the bench mentioned.
The prime courtroom additionally requested the HC to think about the reliefs that have been sought within the PIL afresh. The courtroom additionally requested HC to name for an in depth counter from the State authorities and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on the variety of authorities, medical and personal hospitals which can be being run by pretend or unregistered pharmacists. The state authorities was additionally requested to report on the standing with reference to whether or not it was following Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 or not.
