AbbVie’s Reprimand Over Sponsoring 30 Doctors’ Paris-Monaco Conference Travel Stands, As Karnataka HC Says UCPMP Lets DOP Audit Anonymous Complaints

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) received an anonymous complaint alleging that AbbVie had funded travel and accommodation for 30 healthcare professionals (HCPs) attending conferences in Paris and Monaco in 2024.

The DOP referred the complaint to the OPPI and ordered a special audit under Clause 10.7 of the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 (UCPMP 2024).

The OPPI’s Ethics Committee (ECPMP) held that the anonymous complaint could not be entertained, but also made findings on the merits.

Following the audit and hearings, the Apex Committee reprimanded AbbVie and requested the tax and medical authorities to consider action.

The Income Tax Department issued summonses, and the Registrar of Companies (ROC) initiated an inquiry under Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013.

AbbVie sought to quash the Apex Committee’s order and the consequential proceedings.

Under UCPMP 2024, Clauses 10.3–10.4 require identification of the complainant and prohibit anonymous complaints lodged with an Association’s Ethics Committee; Clause 10.7 separately permits the DOP to act on a complaint received by it, including by referring it to an Association and ordering a special audit.

Clauses 11.10, 12 and 13 distinguish the finality of an ECPMP decision within the Association’s process from the DOP’s separate functions and provide for reprimands, recommendations to Government agencies and the Apex Committee’s role.

Clause 14.3 requires the DOP to notify a panel of auditors but does not, on the Court’s reading, require every Clause 10.7 audit to be conducted by a panel firm or with the company’s consent.

Section 206(1) and (4) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the ROC to seek information and conduct an inquiry, subject to written notice, specification of matters and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; statutory authorities must exercise their own judgment.

Regulation 6.8.1(b)–(c) of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 prohibits doctors attending as delegates from accepting specified travel and hospitality benefits, while Regulation 6.8.1(g) permits professional affiliations subject to stated safeguards.

The Court also applied the principles that prescribed procedures must be followed (*Union of India v. Mahendra Singh*) and that an inquiry officer must act fairly and impartially (*Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma*).

The Court held that the anonymity bar in Clauses 10.3–10.4 governs complaints lodged with an Association, not information received by the DOP under Clause 10.7.

The ECPMP therefore could not entertain the anonymous complaint, but its decision did not terminate the DOP’s independently commenced audit, which began before the ECPMP’s decision and was not an appeal from it.

The Court found no basis to invalidate the audit under Clause 14.3: the Code did not require the company’s consent or establish that the audit team lacked competence or caused prejudice.

It also held that the ROC’s authority arose independently under Section 206, not from the Apex Committee’s order; the latter was only one source of information, and its findings could not bind the ROC.

The Income Tax Department likewise had to assess the expenditure independently.

The Court noted that the sponsorship’s permissibility depended on the doctors’ actual capacity and services, and that a delegate’s acquisition of knowledge did not displace the travel and hospitality prohibitions.

The Court declined to quash the Apex Committee’s order, the Income Tax summonses or the ROC notice, and refused the requested restraint on further action.

It directed that the ROC conduct its inquiry strictly under Section 206(4), including by informing AbbVie in writing of the allegations, specifying the matters under inquiry and providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

AbbVie was directed to reply to the ROC notice within four weeks of receiving the judgment and remained free to raise available objections before the relevant authorities and forums.

The Income Tax Department was permitted to proceed on its independent assessment.