Hospital consumable makers echo Tukaram Mundhe’s call to check pricing norms, ‘irrational profiteering’

Maharashtra FDA Commissioner’s call for review of pricing practices for hospital consumables came after a state survey found wide gaps between their procurement prices & printed MRPs.

Representatiobal image | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint

New Delhi: The medical device industry has echoed Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe’s call for a review of pricing practices for hospital consumables, after a state survey found wide gaps between their procurement prices and printed maximum retail prices (MRPs).

In a post on X Tuesday, Mundhe said a survey of hospital consumables in Maharashtra found an intravenous (IV) infusion set with a trade price of Rs 11.05 carrying a printed MRP of Rs 325, a difference of 2,841 percent.

A syringe procured at Rs 6.75 had an MRP of Rs 57.2, while a catheter procured at Rs 29.41 had an MRP of Rs 310.

The survey covered commonly used hospital consumables, including IV sets, syringes, nebulisers, oxygen masks and catheters.

The most expensive part of a hospital bill may never touch the hospital at all.

A patient admitted for care has no way of knowing whether the price on a medical consumable reflects its actual cost or a markup fixed long before it ever reached the ward. That gap in information…

— Tukaram Mundhe (@Tukaram_IndIAS) September 15, 2026

The Association of Indian Medical Device Industry (AiMeD)—an umbrella body representing more than 1,200 manufacturers across segments including consumables, disposables, equipment, diagnostics and implants—said the findings highlighted the need for a separate pricing policy for medical devices.

“Rational profits for any business are understandable, but irrational profiteering is unfair,” said Rajiv Nath, forum coordinator at AiMeD.

The industry body said patients often cannot bargain over or choose the devices used during hospital treatment, leaving them with little information about the prices they are being charged.

It argued that manufacturers and importers may sell products based on their ex-factory or landed costs, but hospitals can charge patients substantially more for the same products. Landed cost is the total cost of bringing an imported product to India, including transport and applicable duties.

AiMeD said that this creates a system in which hospitals can add large margins to devices that patients have little ability to question or compare.

“When hospitals inflate MRPs by 10–30 times, the market rewards those willing to play the distortion game. Responsible companies that refuse to indulge in excessive margins are forced out of competition or, to survive, have to comply with these unfair demands,” Nath told ThePrint.

The association said a system with clearer limits on the gap between procurement prices and MRPs could improve price transparency for patients while allowing manufacturers and importers to compete on more predictable terms.

Mundhe, in his post on X, said he had sought a review of the findings by the Department of Pharmaceuticals and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), and called for appropriate action, including clear guidelines on the permissible difference between trade procurement prices and declared MRPs.

Mundhe said patients admitted to hospitals generally cannot compare prices, seek alternatives or question the price printed on a product while receiving treatment. “The most expensive part of a hospital bill may never touch the hospital at all,” he added.

 

NPPA’s powers limited

The NPPA, which works under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, is responsible for fixing and monitoring prices under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO). Its powers, however, depend on whether a product is covered by the scheduled category.

For products covered under the scheduled category, the NPPA can fix a ceiling price. These include devices such as coronary stents, condoms and intra-uterine devices.

But many hospital consumables, including IV sets and catheters, are not under this direct ceiling-price system. Manufacturers can set their initial MRP for such products, while subsequent increases are limited to 10 percent a year.

This means NPPA cannot simply impose a common margin limit across all medical devices under the existing system. Any broader cap would require changes to the current pricing framework.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, in its 176th report, had recommended that the gap between the landing price and MRP of medical devices and drugs should not exceed 20 percent.

“The Committee strongly believes that such gap needs to be reduced to the extent that the quality medical devices and the drugs are made available at the affordable cost to the needy patients,” the report said.

It cited the example of tenecteplase, a life-saving medicine used during the “golden hour” after a heart attack, whose landing cost was Rs 18,000 against an MRP of Rs 50,000.

“The Committee, therefore, recommends that the gap should not be more than 20% between landing price and MRP for medical devices and drugs for ensuring quality drugs and medical devices at the affordable cost,” it said.

(Edited by Sugita Katyal)