A controversy involving 30 doctors from across India has reignited concerns about medical ethics, pharmaceutical influence, and regulatory accountability after an RTI response revealed that several state medical councils have yet to take action against doctors found guilty of accepting luxury foreign trips funded by a pharmaceutical company.
The doctors were allegedly beneficiaries of a Paris–Monaco trip worth nearly ₹2 crore, sponsored by pharmaceutical giant AbbVie. Government inquiries had already concluded that the sponsored travel violated ethical marketing standards, yet disciplinary proceedings remain stalled in several states.
According to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the 30 doctors belong to at least nine states. Their names were forwarded by the National Medical Commission (NMC) to the respective State Medical Councils (SMCs) for disciplinary action in 2025.
However, only three of the nine councils reportedly submitted action-taken reports to the NMC. Six councils have yet to provide updates, raising questions about whether professional misconduct cases involving influential healthcare professionals are being pursued with sufficient urgency.
The case stems from a government investigation into allegations that AbbVie sponsored overseas travel and hospitality for 30 doctors during February and March 2024.
Investigators found that the company spent approximately ₹1.9 crore to cover travel, accommodation, and related expenses associated with visits to Paris and Monaco. Authorities concluded that the sponsorship violated provisions of the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), which prohibits pharmaceutical companies from offering gifts, travel benefits, or hospitality that could influence prescribing behavior.
Documents examined during the inquiry reportedly included flight tickets, hotel reservations, and internal expenditure records detailing the costs incurred for individual doctors.
The controversy deepened after reports emerged that not all implicated doctors were forwarded for regulatory action.
While government investigators identified 30 doctors in connection with the sponsored trips, only 27 names were reportedly sent to the National Medical Commission in a later communication. The absence of three names has sparked demands for greater transparency and accountability in the handling of the case.
Health activists and transparency advocates have repeatedly sought disclosure of the doctors' identities through RTI applications. However, authorities have declined to publicly release the names, citing procedural considerations.
The latest RTI findings are not the first indication of slow regulatory action.
Reports throughout 2025 and 2026 repeatedly highlighted delays by both the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the National Medical Commission. Earlier inquiries found the doctors guilty of accepting prohibited benefits, but enforcement measures remained largely absent.
At one stage, officials indicated that doctors found guilty could face penalties ranging from censure to temporary suspension from the Indian Medical Register, depending on the severity of the violation. However, those disciplinary measures have yet to materialize in most cases.
(Rh/ARC)
