File phot used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: The Indian Medical Association (IMA) is back at it - endorsing commercial products. Except, this time they aren’t calling it endorsement. The new name is “certifying a claim that is health friendly”. And the IMA is refusing to divulge how much money has been given for this certification citing “non-disclosure agreements” with the companies whose products they have certified.

The IMA has ‘certified’ a so-called anti-microbial LED bulb which claims to kill 85% germs and an indoor paint that claims to kill 99% infection causing bacteria within two hours of exposure to the painted surface. Responding to TOI’s queries on this, IMA secretary general Dr RV Asokan said that IMA only certified claims on whether a particular technology or statement is “health friendly”. “It is on the lines of pre-entry level accreditation cum certification of medical establishment by NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals),” he said.

Though he admitted that IMA received “a processing fee” for certifying claims, Dr Asokan refused to reveal how many such products IMA had ‘certified’ or how much money it collected as “processing fee”. IMA also did not divulge what scientific study the certification was based on, whether it was a published in a scientific journal and who had funded the study. Instead it brushed the whole issue aside saying that claims are evaluated by a committee which clears a claim for “further processing” if “available literature and/or laboratory reports” referred to are found credible.

After facing flak in 2010 for endorsing commercial products like fruit juices, oats, soaps and water purifiers to earn crores of rupees, then secretary general Dr Dharam Prakash -- who was issued a notice in the matter by the Medical Council of India (MCI) -- had stated that as a policy IMA had decided not to do any more endorsements.

In February 2014, the MCI reinterpreted the Code of Medical Ethics Regulations 2002 as being applicable only to doctors and not to their associations. From clause 6.8 of the regulations which pertained to the “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”, MCI decided to delete the term “association of doctors”. Thus, what an individual doctor was barred from doing could be done by seven doctors (the minimum number needed to form an association) getting together.

In 2015, IMA was again mired in controversy for endorsing a water purifier. IMA claimed that it was no longer under the MCI’s jurisdiction and that raising money by endorsing or certifying health messages was not a violation of MCI rules. However, doctors opposed to the endorsements pointed out that IMA office bearers who took the decision for endorsement were doctors and hence under MCI jurisdiction.

Chairperson of MCI’s Board of Governors (BoG) Dr Vinod Paul when contacted by TOI about thelatest endorsements said that the board had received complaints in this regard and was “seized of the matter”. It would examine the issue of doctors’ associations endorsing products when doctors are not allowed to do so, he said.

