Tuesday, 28 February 2017

The Registration Society of Homoeopathy, UK

This organisation was overlooked in a previous post. Rather than update that post, the organisation's website will be considered in more detail, highlighting breaches of both UK and Indian regulations and legislation. It is worth noting that this organisation will be the subject of complaints to various bodies. This post will also make mention of links to other businesses.

 It is worth noting that all the information here is in the (very) public domain. 

 What is the Registration Society of Homoeopathy, UK
The Registration Society of Homoeopathy, UK (RSHUK) claims to be -
Registration Society of Homeopathy, UK (RSH UK), is a registered, international organization for accreditation of homeopathic professionals. The society represents as a professional and ethical body to recognize and regulate the professional standards of its members by virtue of membership/fellowship and continued medical education. The professional and fellow members undergo examination before awarding the society membership. This enables a competitive and learning environment which helps practitioners gain an edge for their clinical expertise and homeopathic knowledge.
Which doesn't say a lot. 
Who are the Registration Society of Homoeopathy, UK
One of the first places to look to determine who is behind an organisation is Companies House. RSHUK is a limited company and details and filed documents can be found here. Most importantly, it gives the list of directors.
  • Harjit Singh Sidhu - UK resident, no obvious online profile, director of at least two other companies. Former Director of of the Homeopathic Medical Association.
  • Dr Saurav Arora - who is resident in India. Mr Arora has a profile here.
  • Dr Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi - again resident in India. Mr Bakshi has a profile here.
  • Dr Sandeep Paila - India resident, profile here. 
  • Harsharan Kaur Sidhu - UK resident, no obvious online profile but director of at least 10 other companies. Member of the Council of the HMA. Director of HMA.
Additionally, the "faculty" listing includes -
  • Dr Isabelle Grafin Grote - UK resident, profile here. Would appear to be a naturopath - not GMC registered.
  • Dr Jagjit Ram - UK resident, several directorships. Member of HMA. Former Director of HMA. No obvious online profile.
  • Barbara Sharma - UK resident, possibly this person.
  • Dr Mridul Kumar Sahani - India resident
  • Phil Hughes - UK resident. Member of Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH). Best known for this and this .
  • Hafeez Bhatti - unknown status.
  • Dr Ileana Rindasu - Romania resident. Medical doctor
  • Dr Vasilka Yurukova - Bulgaria resident. Medical doctor. Profile here.
  • Dr Kamal Puri - India resident. No obvious online profile.
  • Dr Surjit Singh Makkar - India resident. Qualified vet. Profile here.
  • Dr Anwar Amir Ansari - India resident. Profile here.
  • Dr Leoni Bonamin - Brazil resident. Qualified vet. No useful online profile.
  • Dr Geeta Rani Arora - India resident. Profile here.
The http://rshuk.com/ domain would appear to have been registered by Saurav Arora.

 What do they actually do?
Their purpose is not terribly clear. Their objectives state -

  • To recognize and regulate the professional standards of members by virtue of membership/fellowship: MRSH & FRSH UK respectively.
  • To recognize educational institutions of Homoeopathy located in United Kingdom and other parts of the world.
  • To promote and support facilities for the education of persons desirous of learning homoeopathy and biochemic system of medicine in United Kingdom.
  • To organize seminars & conferences nationally & internationally, for supporting the dissemination of authentic homoeopathic practices worldwide.
  • To establish a Code of Ethics to maintain high professional standards of practice amongst qualified homoeopathic practitioners (See Code of Ethics).
  • To facilitate the exchange of homoeopathic knowledge in the form of International clinical exposure worldwide.
  • To publish an international directory of qualified practitioners of homoeopathy registered with RSH UK.
  • To provide free homoeopathic consultation; to establish charitable clinics and arrange free camps for the needy.
  • To increase public awareness and acceptance of homoeopathy internationally as a safe and effective system of medicine.
So, except for providing free homeopathic consultation, not that different from UK homeopathic trade associations?

Joining the RSHUK is somewhat different to other trade associations. Rather than being accepted purely on the basis on qualifications gained from an "approved" institution (or a cumbersome individual assessment process), RSHUK also requires an online exam. It could be the case that the exam is skewed towards Indian homeopaths, which might make it difficult for UK lay homeopaths to pass. Also, note that taking the fee for the examination is non-refundable. RSHUK talks about -
Eligibility: Candidates applying for the MRSH must have a Diploma or Degree from a recognized school/university/college of homeopathy. In addition, experienced homeopaths who previously had Diploma in homeopathy, and are in regular homeopathic practice for at least 5 years may be accepted for the membership by submitting curriculum vitae, letters of reference and a compilation of 5 case studies. If the basic requirements are met, a written(online) exam/interview will be conducted for granting membership. Applicants need to show competence in written and spoken English and use of computers. C.V., evidence/copies of valid certificates must be appended with the application.
Um. Recognised by who? Also, it appears that the website wants payment for the exam before any checking takes place and sneakily charges a 4% processing fee. 

The fees for membership are for five years. They are not refundable under any circumstances. This is unusual in that other trade associations have annual fees. One problem with this is that the RSHUK may go out of business. Some of the people associated with RSHUK have a history of involvement with failed companies - as will be discussed later. 

There is talk in the terms of use of some sort of "course" -
Cancellations & ReturnsThe membership fee in NOT REFUNDABLE under any circumstance. However, course fee may be refunded as per details below:
Within one month of registration to course: Full amount, subjected to deduction of 5% (Administrative Fee)
Within three months of registration to course: 50% of the total amount
Beyond three months: NO REFUND
But RSHUK do not seem to offer a course. Webinars? Yes but is unclear whether there are any Seminars and conferences? Well, there don't seem to be any scheduled.

RSHUK say that they offer an insurance scheme via Balens. It is not necessary to join a trade body to get insurance but it can result in a discount although that is likely to be more than offset by the cost of being a member of the trade body. Interestingly, RSHUK does not insist on insurance, merely stating that is the responsibility of the member to be insured.

What the RSHUK seems to offer that is unusual are internships.
For full members, we provide a clinical Internship of 3 weeks at following locations*Homeopathy Health Clinic, Hounslow, London, England.Bakson Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Greater Noida, UP, India.
The aim of this clinical internship is to provide a clinical exposure to our members at International level. The internship and accommodation shall be provided for free, but a member has to bear the travel and visa formalities on his/her own.
The Homeopathy Health Clinic will be discussed later. Visa formalities may be a problem. For those wanting to do the UK internship, this represents no problem to European Economic Area (EEA) citizens but does for those outside. A Tier 5 visa would be required and may not be permitted. Coming in on a tourist visa would risk deportation. India visa requirements for interns are unclear to say the least.

Problems
Apart from misleading claims in the website, the main problem is that Indian homeopaths registered with the Central Council for Homoeopathy (CCH) would potentially be in breach of the Code of Ethics which forbids professional association with non-registered homeopaths. It is unclear whether the CCH would regard online activities as ultra vires but offering internships in India is a completely different matter.

The RSHUK Code of Ethics could be a problem in itself. 
It is the responsibility of Members to be acquainted with and comply with the Laws of their country, as they apply to the practice of homeopathy. Overseas Members must abide by the laws of the country in which they practice.
This is uniformly a problem with homeopaths in pretty much every country. It is worth bearing in mind that the CCH Code of Ethics has the force of law in India. The section on advertising reads -
Members may advertise their professional services as follows: 
  • Name Plates of a modest size may be displayed outside the Member’s clinic. 
  • No Member may use the title Doctor or Physician in their Homeopathic advertising unless entitled to do so in their country. In the UK unless registered with the General Medical Society. 
  • If the title Dr is used in other forms of advertising, then it must be stated clearly what the qualification refers to (e.g. Ph.D.). 
  • Advertising must be discreet and not designed to mislead the public. 
  • No advertisement may claim or imply any superiority over the professional services provided by other practitioners, nor give the impression that the Member is a specialist in the treatment of a particular disease. 
  • No advertising may be used that claims to cure named diseases in accordance with the laws of their country. 
  • No Member may use their Association membership in the commercialization of any product or remedy.
  • Members who write articles or broadcast homeopathy must make clear that their views do not necessarily reflect those of the RSH UK.
What legislation and regulations permit for UK advertising of homeopathy is well understood. However, what non-UK members may not realise is that breaching advertising regulations in their own country could lead to RSHUK disciplinary action. Although the RSHUK has no power, per se, as the membership fees are non-refundable, it is money down the toilet.

There is also the question of what impact the RSHUK could have on other homeopathic trade bodies. 

Links to other Organisations
So say that the links between various individuals and organisations is complex would be a gross understatement. Some of the individuals named above have been involved with all sorts of schemes, most of which have gone absolutely nowhere. And some of the other people involved in those schemes are linked to other schemes. Any attempt to map this gets out of control so only fairly direct links are considered.

Harsharan Kaur Sidhu is a current/former director of the following companies -
Harjit Singh Sidhu is the current/former director of these additional companies where Harsharan Kaur Sidhu is not.
And there are possibly a few other companies with these two as directors under slightly different names.

Homeopathic Health Clinic


The purpose of the rather obvious doctoring of this photo is unclear but this is the Homoeopathic Health Clinic (HHC), which is presumably where Harsharan Kaur Sidhu is based. The doctored photo shows Baksons UK logo - see above - and also "Dr Herbals UK". There is a Companies House record which shows the company has been dissolved. The drherbalsuk.com domain isn't working but is registered to Harjit Singh Sidhu via Homoeopathic Essentials Ltd. There is a Wix shop. The above photo is fairly high res - the post in the window seems to list Dr Herbals UK products.

It would be easy to poke fun at the website and the associated ones. That is not the purpose of this post.

There is a downloadable brochure associated with the Wix shop. It is easier to examine that the website. Dr Herbals UK show a UK flag on their marketing. It seems unlikely that these products are produced in the UK. The style of the graphics is similar to what is seen in Indian marketing. The packaging shown is not consistent with EU standards for Traditional Herbal Medicines. But it is very, very similar to that of Dr Homoeopaths - Harjit Singh Sidhu again. The guest list for his presentation includes some familiar names, including Jagjit Ram and Shashi Mohan Sharma.

 The American Homeo Herbal Inc on the mock up of packaging is a dissolved company listed in California. The name Harjit S Sidhu appears in the paperwork. The purpose of the company was supposedly the manufacturing of herbal products.

 Conclusions
It is unsurprising that Indian homeopaths resident in the UK have links to those resident in India. Neither is it particularly surprising that business ventures are attempted, even if most of them seem to come to nothing. 

 Importing Indian healthcare and beauty products is a lot more difficult than it might first appear. Licences have to be applied for, GMP certification is required and products may need to be tested or registered in the UK before they can be placed on the market. It's not a quick or easy process. Nor is it inexpensive.

 Setting up UK trade bodies for homeopaths is notionally easier (and cheaper) but it does require active attempts at recruiting members. Some evidence suggests that the number of UK homeopaths is in decline. Certainly, the Society of Homeopaths have said that their numbers are dropping as their members retire and there are fewer new homeopaths joining. For India homeopaths in the UK, the Homeopathic Medical Association is a much better option than the RSHUK.

 UPDATE:
Mention of a mysterious Bakson College of Homoeopathy UK is being made on various homeopathy websites - an example here. It would be appear, on face value a joint venture between the RSHUK and the Bakson organisation. The article referenced gives a web address to a page on the RSHUK website that currently does not exist. No mention is made of the "college" on either the RSHUK website or the Bakson website.

 This does not suggest a thought through marketing strategy.

 The office of the Bakson College of Homoeopathy UK would appear to be the shop/clinic above.

 There is an "official" opening event to be held at the University of West London or rather in a room rented from them. Some have suggested that groups like RSHUK hold events at universities as opposed to other venues because of the halo effect. Some critics of homeopathy do get upset about this. One argument is that hosting pseudo-scientific medicine events is an offense to academics/scientists/medics who work at the institution. Another is the risk of reputational damage. 

 But there is already a "homoeopathic college" in that part of the world - the Hahnemann College of Homeopathy the principal of which is the above mentioned Shashi Mohan Sharma. Would the Bakson College draw away potential students? Unlikely on the basis that the Bakson College of Homoeopathy UK is likely to fail even before it gets started but even so.
Posted by at 9 comments:

Saturday, 25 February 2017

International Concerns about Indian Homeopathy

It may seem curious that a UK-based blog takes an interest in Indian regulation of homeopathy but there are some very good reasons for this. There are some concerns that not only apply to the UK but to many Anglophone countries.

 Misrepresentation of Qualifications
Whilst India and a number of other countries recognise homeopathic qualifications, the vast majority do not. This means that in those countries, Indian homeopaths are not considered medically qualified in anyway. Depending on jurisdiction, they may not be permitted to practice at all (medical practice being restricted to those with a medical degree and registration). In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, anyone call practice but they are not allowed to imply that they have a medical qualification. They are treated the same as any other medically unqualified person. Any one can call themselves a "homeopath" without qualifications of any kind. In some of these jurisdictions, the title of "Doctor" or its equivalent is protected by law - only those with the appropriate qualifications can use it. Even if this is not the case, advertising regulators take a dim view of the use of "Doctor" in a healthcare setting as it has the potential to mislead the public.

 There is a problem in the UK with Indian homeopaths either practicing here or visiting the UK from India to give lectures, etc, using the "Doctor" title. Some of them are obviously aware of the issue as they include disclaimers in their advertising stating that they are "Doctors of Homeopathy", usually in small print somewhere. It is also known that various Indian homeopaths have be told about restrictions on the use of the title but still go on using it.

 There are questions relating to how Indian homeopaths end up practicing in countries that have eligibility criteria for immigration. Their qualifications are not recognised. It could be the case that they can immigrate on the basis of a spouse's qualification but then again, possibly not.

 Some Indian homeopaths who appear to be largely resident in the UK seem to retain their registration with the Central Council of Homopathy (CCH) in India. This has the potential to cause problems.

 Training and Courses
From the above, any advertising of training and courses that involve an Indian homeopath using the title "Doctor" would be as problematic as in the healthcare scenario. There have been problems with the naming of the qualifications handed out as a result. For example, in the UK only universities have the ability to award degrees. A course run by a listed college etc actually comes from a university.

 Diploma mills have existed in the UK and still pop up from time to time but the Internet allows distance "learning" and it is true to say that some Indian homeopaths have been involved with such organisations.

For those Indian homeopaths that still maintain CCH registration, offering courses in the UK is problematic. The Homoeopathic Practitioners - (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Code of Ethics) places many restrictions on what they can do. Firstly, it is considered professional misconduct if...
j) if issues certificates in Homoeopathy to unqualified or non-medical persons:
Provided that nothing contained in these regulations shall prevent or restrict the proper training and instruction of legitimate employees of doctors, midwives, dispensers, attendants or skilled mechanical and technical assistants under the personal supervision of practitioners of Homoeopathy.
This would apply to the Allen College of Homeopathy. "Dr" Banerjea still maintains his CCH registration. Quite likely, it would include any Indian homeopathy with CCH registration involved with any UK homeopathy course.

There is little point in setting up a homeopathy course aimed at potential "practitioners" unless the qualifications are recognised by one or more of the trade bodies in the UK. However the CCH Code of Ethics also states...
20 Association with Unregistered Persons
A practitioner shall not associate himself professionally with any body or society of unregistered practitioners of Homoeopathy.
Which is unfortunate.

 It is also the case that some UK resident homeopaths have been involved in schemes to offer Indian resident homeopaths UK qualifications. This is problematic for the UK based ones if they still retain CCH registration (issuing certificates) and for the Indian residents if they do not (consorting with the unregistered). Perhaps the answer lies in this quote -
Q: What are the employment opportunities once we pursue the course??A: As mentioned above the degree will help you to practice in places like US,UK,CANADA,NEW ZEALAND and many such places where homoeopathy is slowly gaining ground. In addition if you don’t practice on the foreign land and decide to stay back in India, the degree will add a prestigious value to your current B.H.M.S OR MD DEGREE. Another important aspect of the same issue is that we will provide post course guidance once the entire course is over and also keep you informed of the possible vacancies owing to which newly passed out homoeopathic graduates can benefit a lot like MD. But MD course will not enable you to practice in US, UK OR EUROPE.
Absolutely not true on all counts. Fortunately, the associated website is dead. However, the organisation behind this still offers distance learning courses including one aimed at Indian homeopaths although it does not make any claims about allowing practice in other countries.

 Trade Bodies
The three largest trade associations in the UK are the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) and the Homeopathic Medical Association (HMA). The latter seems the most popular with Indian homeopaths in the UK. But any Indian homeopaths maintaining CCH registration would breach the Code of Ethics by doing so as would associating with any of these groups in any way.

 Interestingly, India homeopaths in the UK have attempted to set up Trade Associations only to fail. The World Homeopathic Association - London is one example but there have been others. The Indian man in the photo is Shashi Mohan Singh who seems very entrepreneurial as well as appearing in a Bollywood film.

 It works the other way around with Indian resident homeopaths. The International Homoeopathic Foundation would seem to be an all Indian affair although, again, Shashi Mohan Singh seems to be involved. Membership would appear to be open to non-Indian homeopaths but again this would be a breach of CCH Code of Ethics as are the foreign guests at their conference.

 Trips to India
Some UK homeopaths proudly proclaim that they have been to India. This trip did not involve the UK homeopaths treating any patients but associating with members of the HMA would have put the Indian homeopaths in a tricky situation.

 The Allen College of Homoeopathy is far more problematic as it offers a programme in India which involves "80+ hours of CPD & Clinical hours Certificate". Subrata Kumar Banerjea maintains his CCH registration. The website breaches multiple regulations and legislation both from a UK and Indian perspective. It would take a voluminous article to describe them all. He is also involved with Bengal Allen homeopathic medicines and has the Bengal Allen Medical Institute - readers of a sensitive nature may find some of the images disturbing.

 Export of Homeopathic Medicines
Although as was explained in a previous post, there are no explicit regulations regarding export of homeopathic medicines, purchasers do need to be aware of importation regulations in their own country. This post covered the UK, this one Ireland and most draconian of all, this one covered Norway. What these jurisdictions have in common is the requirement for the manufacturer to have Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification and for the homeopathic medicines to be registered with the medicines regulator. Norway pretty much forbids personal importation but the UK and Ireland do not. However, importing the medicines and placing them on the market in the UK does occur - one example is this and there are some others.

 US regulation is different, and will be covered in a future post but the requirement for GMP is there. Also, only a limited number of ingredients are permitted - the ones in the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States and only indications for self-limiting conditions are permitted.

 Test Complaints
The attitude towards these problems by regulators is largely unknown. The only way to determine this is by making test complaints. It is suspected that in many cases regulators will be indifferent. 


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 20 February 2017

Regulation in India #3

This post will deal with advertising and consumer protection. Compared to certain Western European countries, legalisation and regulation are much less developed and enforcement is at best haphazard.

 The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
This is arguably the most important piece of legislation covering advertising of homeopathic medicines as it places absolute prohibition on advertising medicines for certain diseases. Court cases do rarely occur but the sheer volume of advertising that breaches the Act 1954 is indicative.
3. Prohibition of Advertisement of Certain Drugs for Treatment of Certain Diseases and Disorders.– 
Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for –  
a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women; or  
b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human beings for sexual pleasure; or 
c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women; or  
d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease, disorder or condition specified in the Schedule, or any other disease, disorder or condition (by whatsoever name called) which may be specified in the rules made under this Act:  
Provided that no such rule shall be made except,– 
(i) in respect of any disease, disorder or condition which requires timely treatment in consultation with a registered medical practitioner or for which there are normally no accepted remedies, and  
(ii) after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and, if the Central Government considers necessary, with such other persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicines as that Government deems fit.
This is very clear. The Act 1954 allows Central Government to add additional rules forbidding advertising for conditions that require urgent consultation as long as they take advice. The Schedule lists various diseases/conditions.
1. Appendicitis 
2. Arteriosclerosis 
3. Blindness 
4. Blood poisoning 
5. Bright’s disease 
6. Cancer 
7. Cataract 
8. Deafness 
9. Diabetes 
10. Diseases and Disorders of brain 
11. Diseases and Disorders of the optical system  
12. Diseases and Disorders of the uterus  
13. Disorders of menstrual flow  
14. Disorders of the nervous system 
15. Disorders of the prostatic gland 
16. Dropsy 
17. Epilepsy 
18. Female diseases (in general) 
19. Fevers (in general)  
20. Fits 
21. Form and structure of the female bust 
22. Gall stones, kidney stones and bladder stones  
23. Gangrene 
24. Glaucoma 
25. Goitre 
26. Heart diseases 
27. High/Low Blood Pressure 
28. Hydrocele 
29. Hysteria 
30. Infantile paralysis 
31. Insanity 
32. Leprosy 
33. Leucoderma 
34. Lockjaw 
35. Locomotor ataxia 
36. Lupus 
37. Nervous debility 
38. Obesity 
39. Paralysis 
40. Plague 
41. Pleurisy 
42. Pneumonia 
43. Rheumatism 
44. Ruptures 
45. Sexual impotence 
46. Smallpox 
47. Stature of persons 
48. Sterility in women 
49. Trachoma 
50. Tuberculosis 
51. Tumours 
52. Typhoid fever 
53. Ulcers of the gastro-intestinal tract 
54. Venereal diseases, including syphilis, gonorrhoea, soft chancre, venereal granuloma and lympho granuloma.

This list uses obsolete terms for certain conditions/diseases - not that it matters terribly in the context of this post. Some of the terms have very broad scope and potentially cover many different conditions/diseases. Asthma and AIDS were added at a later date.

 As mentioned in the previous post, whilst the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 do not forbid the labelling of homeopathic drugs with indications, it would be a breach of the Act 1954 to present advertising that contained images of packaging that displayed indications for the prevention, treatment or cure of any of the above, let alone any textual claims accompanying such images.

 The question as to whether a registered homeopathic practitioner could make claims to treat any of the above conditions/diseases without mentioning specific homeopathic medicines is difficult to answer. If the interpretation of the "any medicine" is any specific medicine then, perhaps, it might be permitted but this is a very generous interpretation. It is clear that certain authorities do more broadly interpret "any medicine" as to mean any homeopathic medicine that the homeopathic practitioner may select. Put another way, it is not the specific medicine that matters but the claim to prevent, treat or cure with homeopathic medicine.
4. Prohibition of Misleading Advertisements Relating to Drugs.– Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement relating to a drug if the advertisement contains any matter whicha) directly or indirectly gives a false impression regarding the true character of the drug; or b) makes a false claim for the drug; or c) is otherwise false or misleading in any material particular.
Again, this is very clear and mirrors some of the provisions in Act 1940. "any part" also places responsibility on anyone involved in the creation and publication of an advertisement, which would include newspapers and web hosts, etc. It would also cover distribution of such advertising via email and social media. For example, those retweeting advertisements on Twitter could be send as in breach of the Act 1954.
6. Prohibition of Import into, and Export from, India of Certain Advertisements.– No person shall import into, or export from, the territories to which this Act extends any document containing an advertisement of the nature referred to in section 3, or section 4, or section 5, and any documents containing any such advertisement shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878) and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word ‘shall’ therein the word ‘may’ were substituted.
The Act 1954 was written long before the advent of the Internet and satellite television. Whilst it would obviously be an offence to import/export documents such as brochures, newspapers and magazines with such advertising, it could be argued that electronic transmission could also be covered by this. In terms of export, it is very unlikely that an advertiser would, say, target only export customers and not also Indian customers. Import though is another rather more complicated issue.
7. Penalty.– Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under shall, on conviction, be punishable – a) in the case of a first conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; b) in the case of a subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
It could be argued that anyone so convicted would lose their licence to sell homeopathic medicines.
9. Offences By Companies.– (1) If the person contravening any of the provisions of this Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or the officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.– For the purposes of this section,– 
a) ‘company’ means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and  
b) ‘director’ in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
Again, very clear.
14. Saving.–  Nothing in this Act shall apply to –  
a) any signboard or notice displayed by a registered medical practitioner on his premises indicating that treatment for any disease, disorder or condition specified in section 3, the Schedule or the rules made under this Act is undertaken in those premises; or  
b) any treatise or book dealing with any of the matters specified in section 3 from a bona fide scientific or social standpoint; or  
c) any advertisement relating to any drug sent confidentially in the manner prescribed under section 16 only to a registered medical practitioner; or  
d) any advertisement relating to a drug printed or published by the Government; or  
e) any advertisement relating to a drug printed or published by any person with the previous sanction of the Government granted prior to the commencement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Amendment Act, 1963 (42 of 1963): Provided that the Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, withdraw the sanction after giving the person an opportunity of showing cause against such withdrawal.
Curiously, (d) would allow the Ministry of AYUSH to publish whatever they liked.

 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
This is the most important element of consumer protection legislation. It deals mostly with complaints about defective goods - very little of it deals with misleading advertising and the only sanction available is to order the publication of corrective advertising.

 Industry specific legislation does exist, as above.

The Advertising Standards Council of India
The ASCI is a voluntary self-regulator along the line of the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It  was formed in 1985. Like the ASA it has a code for advertisers - the ASCI Codes. The most relevant sections of which are -
CHAPTER-I TRUTHFUL & HONEST REPRESENTATION 
To ensure the Truthfulness and Honesty of Representations and Claims made by Advertisements and to Safeguard against misleading Advertisements 
1.1. Advertisements must be truthful. All descriptions, claims and comparisons which relate to matters of objectively ascertainable fact should be capable of substantiation. Advertisers and advertising agencies are required to produce such substantiation as and when called upon to do so by The Advertising Standards Council of India. 
1.2. Where advertising claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research or assessment, the source and date of this should be indicated in the advertisement.  
1.3. Advertisements shall not, without permission from the person, firm or institution under reference, contain any reference to such person, firm or institution which confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised or tends to bring the person, firm or institution into ridicule or disrepute. If and when required to do so by The Advertising Standards Council of India, the advertiser and the advertising agency shall produce explicit permission from the person, firm or institution to which reference is made in the advertisement. 
1.4. Advertisements shall neither distort facts nor mislead the consumer by means of implications or omissions. Advertisements shall not contain statements or visual presentation which directly or by implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer about the product advertised or the advertiser or about any other product or advertiser. 
1.5. Advertisements shall not be so framed as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall be permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.  
Any advertising of homeopathic medicines or homeopathic services will run foul of these provisions - the essential problem is the one of substantiation of any claim of efficacy or effectiveness. It is not clear what ASCI would accept as evidence though - objective ascertainable fact would appear to rule out anecdotal claims. However, Indian government policy seems to be that homeopathy is efficacious but that does not turn into fact.

 Indian consumer awareness of the nature of homeopathy is unknown. There do not appear to have been any surveys or studies. 
CHAPTER III AGAINST HARMFUL PRODUCTS / SITUATIONS
To safeguard against the indiscriminate use of advertising in situations or of the promotion of products which are regarded as hazardous or harmful to society or to individuals, particularly minors, to a degree or of a type which is unacceptable to society at large. 
3.4. Advertisements should contain nothing which is in breach of the law, nor omit anything which the law requires. 
3.5. Advertisements shall not propagate products, the use of which is banned under the law.  
3.6. Advertisements for products whose advertising is prohibited or restricted by law or by this Code must not circumvent such restrictions by purporting to be advertisements for other products the advertising of which is not prohibited or restricted by law or by this Code. In judging whether or not any particular advertisement is an indirect advertisement for a product whose Advertising is restricted or prohibited, due attention shall be paid to the following:  
(a) Whether the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted. 
(b) Whether there exist in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose Advertising is restricted or prohibited by law or by this Code. 
(c) Where Advertising is necessary, the mere use of a brand name or company name that may also be applied to a product whose Advertising is restricted or prohibited, is not a reason to find the advertisement objectionable provided the advertisement is not objectionable in terms of (a) and (b) above.
As might be expected, the ASCI Codes do not permit the use of illegal content. As seen in a previous post, the Central Council for Homeopathy forbids advertising by homeopaths and the Act 1954 forbids the advertising of homeopathic medicines for the prevention, treatment or cure of certain conditions/diseases.

Powers of the ASCI
To quote from the ASCI website -
ASCI's role has been acclaimed by various agencies including the Government. However, it lacked the force of legal recognition. The Government of India has at last, taken note of this and by one stroke on 2nd August 2006 vide a notification in The Gazette of India: Extraordinary {Part II –sec. 3(i)}, made sure that at least as far as TV Commercials go, they abide by ASCI code. The amendment made in Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 through a Notification dated August 2nd, 2006 now states: "(9) No advertisement which violates the Code for Self-Regulation in Advertising, as adopted by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), Mumbai for public exhibition in India, from time to time, shall be carried in the cable service".
Acclaim is not the same as having statutory regulatory powers. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has those powers. The ASCI complaints process seems to indicate that there is no process for dealing with those who do not abide by their rulings - in other jurisdictions, the case would possible be passed onto a statutory regulator. The point of self-regulation is to avoid cases ended up in court, which is expensive but self-regulation is rendered impotent if there is no backstop.

Impact of the ASCI
This is difficult to determine. The ASCI variously states -
ASCI used to receive and process complaints against around 170 advertisements prior to start of National Advertising Monitoring Service (NAMS), from a cross section of consumers and the general public, and this covers individuals, practitioners in advertising, advertiser firms, media, advertisements Agencies, and ancillary services connected with advertising. Since May 2012 ASCI has started monitoring of all most all newly released print and TV ads in India under the NAMS initiative which tracks down around 120 ads per month on an average for suo moto complaint processing..
And 
ASCI receives relatively much less complaints against advertisements v/s developed countries like like UK whose self regulatory body gets nearly 20000 in year. This is because of various reasons main one being awareness of ASCI among consumers is low given population dispersion in India v/s other smaller, compact geographies, Over the years ASCI has focused on increasing its awareness by releasing mass media campaigns, reporting CCC results via media, coming out with complaint receiving mechanism on line and also thru toll free phone etc. but still complaints received by ASCI were about 2000-2500 per annum for 175 advertisements per year on an average. On the other hand, Government’s Department of Consumer Affairs and Consumer Activists believe there has been increasing instances of misleading advertisements which harm consumer’s interests. Many such advertisements escaped CCC’s scrutiny as complaints against them are not brought to ASCI’s notice. ASCI’s NAMS initiative therefore was launched to ensure that most top Newspapers and all TV Channels are closely monitored to ensure that no ad which makes unsubstantiated, misleading or false claims escapes CCC’s scrutiny.
The concentration on newspapers and television is understandable. Internet use is increasing rapidly in India but print and broadcast are still the media that the majority of Indians encounter. Arguably television is most important given the patchy literacy rates - even if they are improving.

 It has been suggested that some do not complain to ASCI as they regard it as toothless.

 Partnership with Ministry of AYUSH
In January 2017, it was announced that the ASCI and the Ministry of AYUSH had signed a memorandum of understanding that ASCI would monitor advertising of ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homoeopathy medicines, treatment and related services across print and electronic media. The various reports at the time suggest that the Ministry of AYUSH would refer any complaints they received directly to the ASCI and that the ASCI would report back to them. The reports also suggest that the focus is on advertising in breach of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. No mention is made of what the Ministry of AYUSH would do with such reports as it is not the regulator responsible for the Act 1954. Nor was any mention made of the prohibition on AYUSH practitioners advertising all but changes in address etc - which would fall under the remit of bodies within the Ministry such as the CCH.

 This seems very strange as even prior to the announcement the ASCI were investigating some advertising by AYUSH practitioners and ruling against them. From November 2016 -
11. Dr. Batra’s Homeopathy Family Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “We have provided successful treatments for more than ten lakh patients in 142 cities for hairfall, skin disorder, allergy, breathlessness, gastric disorder, women’s issues, high sugar levels, joint aches, obesity, sexual problems, thyroid and other health problems for people of all ages”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also, specific to the claim related to successful treatment of sexual problems, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. In addition, specific to the claims related to successful treatment for Diabetes (high sugar levels) and obesity, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.
A quick look at the Dr. Batra's website shows that is in breach of the Act 1954 and there have been multiple issues with them in the past.
32. Positive Homeopathy: The advertisement’s claim, “Complete disease cure with Nano pills for the first time across the world using advanced nano medicine and genetic method – Diabetes – Piles - PCOD - Rheumatoid Arthritis”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Specific to the claims related to complete cure for Diabetes the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 9 under DMR schedule). Also specific to the claims related to complete cure for Piles, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated Schedule J (item 42) Rule 106 of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.
The reference to Rule 106 is curious as it falls under PART IX LABELLING AND PACKING OF DRUGS OTHER THAN HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINES. 
41. American Homeo Lab: The advertisement’s claims, “Doctors give best treatment for diabetes, sex problem, low semen without any side effects”, and “Effect starts from first day and cure in 1 month”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading. Further the claim, “100% Guarantee”, was not proven with supporting evidence of the customers who have been benefitted by the treatment. Also, specific to the claims related to treatment of sexual problems, low semen, read in conjunction with the advertisement visual, imply enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. Even the specific claims related to treatment for Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. 
It would seem likely that these rulings apply to advertisements in newspapers. It is clear that ASCI interpret the Act 1954 to prohibit the claim to prevent, treat or cure with homeopathic medicine rather a specific homeopathic medicine.

 Future
It is early days for the ASCI/Ministry of AYUSH partnership. It remains to see how well this will function - there is a potential for inaction on the part of the Ministry especially if the issue of the prohibition of advertising by homeopaths is brought up.

 There is also the question of whether the recent flurry of publicity will encourage more complaints to be made.

 The Ministry of AYUSH may disappear in a proposed streamlining of government. It has been suggested it could be re-absorbed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The implications of this are unclear for the partnership.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)