Very unacceptable: SC slams IMA chief over adverse remarks on Patanjali misleading ads case | India News

NEW DELHI: Terming Indian Medical Association (IMA) president R V Asokan‘s adverse remarks in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case “very, very unacceptable”, the Supreme Court asked, “Your president gave an interview on the eve of the hearing. Why on the eve of hearing?”
Expressing displeasure over Asokan’s comments a day before the top court was slated to hear the matter, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah sought his response on an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
This came after the IMA president’s interview with PTI editors on April 29 for its programme ‘@4 Parliament Street’ where he said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticised the association and also some of the practices of private doctors.
What did the court said today?
Today, the court highlighted that it was the doctors’ association that had initiated legal action against the company led by Acharya Balkrishna for disseminating deceptive advertisements harmful to modern medicine.
“You are the one coming to the court and saying that the other side are the ones misleading the public by advertisements, running your system of medicine down. What are you doing?” the bench said.
When Patwalia said the IMA president was actually “praising” the apex court’s order, the bench said, “We don’t want any pat on our back from anybody. We are only doing our job”.
“This court is aware of the fact and you should be aware of it that it has broad enough shoulders to handle it all,” Justice Kohli said.
“Very, very unacceptable,” Justice Amanullah added.
The bench informed Patwalia that his response did not succeed in persuading the court.
What did RK Ashokan said?
During the hearing of the Patanjali misleading advertisements case on April 23, the Supreme Court criticized certain unethical behaviors exhibited by doctors. The “vague and generalised statements”, Asokan added, have demoralised private doctors.
“We sincerely believe they need to look at what was the material before them. They perhaps did not consider that this was not the issue that was before them in the court… You can say anything but still a majority of doctors are conscientious… practising according to ethics and principles. It does not behove the Supreme Court to take a broadside against the medical profession of the country which, after all, sacrificed so many lives for the Covid war,” the IMA President had said.
(With inputs from PTI)