India Pharma Outlook Team | Friday, 04 September 2026
Medicine overpricing in India has triggered a sharp clash between drug makers and the pricing regulator.
Companies reject the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’s proposal that would place sole legal responsibility for overpricing on manufacturers while shielding retail chemists, hospitals and nursing homes.
Industry groups argue that the move upends the existing balance under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order and creates an unreasonable burden on compliant producers.
Retailers, by contrast, welcome the protection. This analysis examines the proposal, the legal arguments manufacturers raise, and the wider cost pressures that shape the dispute.
The NPPA has proposed a change that would hold drug manufacturers accountable for overpricing medicines while exempting downstream retail chemists, hospitals, and nursing homes from prosecution and punitive action. Pharmaceutical groups across sizes have opposed the idea. Retail chemist bodies have supported it.
Under the current framework, responsibility for selling above the controlled or listed price is shared. The new approach would concentrate liability on the manufacturer even when a retailer or hospital sets the final price charged to the patient.
Manufacturers have sent formal representations to the NPPA objecting to this shift. They contend that once they declare accurate maximum retail prices and comply with notification and filing requirements, they cannot control subsequent overcharging by parties further down the chain.
The proposal arrives against a backdrop of high medical costs. Annual medical inflation in private hospitals runs at up to 13 per cent. Out-of-pocket spending still accounts for 44 per cent of health expenditure, roughly three times the level seen in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Whereas, the public health spending remains below 2 per cent of GDP.
Also Read: How Regulatory Readiness Can Shape Pharma's Global Growth
The Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) leads the industry’s resistance. Its national president, Harish K Jain, states that the proposal would upend the existing distribution of responsibility under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, and impose an “unreasonable and disproportionate burden” on manufacturers who already comply with pricing rules.
FOPE points to Para 26 of the DPCO; this provision bars any person, not manufacturers alone, from selling a formulation above the price listed or printed on the pack. The federation argues that this language already establishes shared responsibility. Retailers, hospitals and other sellers interact directly with consumers, set the final transaction price and control the sale itself.
Manufacturers’ obligations under the DPCO framework, covering price declaration and communication requirements, are limited to:
Once that information is submitted and made public, FOPE maintains that subsequent overcharging by a downstream party falls outside the manufacturer’s control and should not automatically trigger manufacturer liability.
One industry representative has asked the NPPA to put the proposal on hold, warning that exempting downstream sellers entirely could open the door to disputes and pressure tactics against manufacturers.
The All India Organization of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD) have welcomed the proposed protection. Its general secretary, Rajiv Singhal, argues that a bona-fide chemist should not face penalties for a pricing violation committed by a manufacturer when the medicine has been purchased through a legitimate supply chain.
AIOCD has requested no retrospective liability on existing stock, a transition period of 75–90 days, and clear statutory protection for retailers, stockists, distributors, C&F agents and hospital pharmacies.
The dispute sits inside a larger problem of medical inflation and limited public capacity. India has only 16 hospital beds per 10,000 people, compared with 56 in China and 126 in Japan. Room charges typically form only about 12 per cent of a patient’s total bill over a multi-day stay.
When authorities earlier capped stent prices, hospitals recovered the difference by raising procedure costs or doctor fees. Restricting capital or imposing further price controls without addressing capacity risks slowing technology adoption and growth.
Medicine overpricing in India is not only a question of numbers on a pack. It is a contest over who bears legal responsibility when the final price exceeds the controlled limit. Manufacturers insist that Para 26 of the DPCO and their compliance duties through IPDMS already define the boundary of their liability. Retailers insist they should not pay for decisions taken upstream. Until the NPPA resolves this tension, the proposal will continue to divide the pharmaceutical supply chain.
.jpg)
