MRP Decoded: What Every Consumer Should Know An Interview with RAJIV NATH, Forum Coordinator, AiMeD Most of us glance at the MRP on a product without thinking twice. But, behind that tiny, printed number lies a big story – one that affects how much we pay, how businesses behave and how fairly the market treats consumers. To help simplify this, The Aware Consumer spoke to Rajiv Nath, Forum Coordinator of AiMeD, who has been championing fair pricing and ethical practices in India's medical devices sector. Here, he breaks down the MRP puzzle in simple, relatable terms. Q. MRP was originally introduced as a consumer protection measure. In today's market environment, do you think it still serves that purpose effectively? Yes, it does. Think of MRP as a 'speed limit' for prices – no shop can legally go above it. In medical devices, this is especially important because people often buy them in emergencies or in places with limited choices. Q. With the rise of e-commerce and dynamic pricing, is the concept of a printed MRP becoming outdated? Not really. Online prices may jump around, but the printed MRP acts like a safety net. It ensures there's always a maximum price, especially for essentials like thermometers, BP monitors or insulin syringes. Q. Consumers often judge value based on the difference between the MRP and the actual selling price. How does this perception influence pricing strategies? A big discount makes people feel as if they are getting a steal – even if the MRP was inflated. For example, an oxygen mask with an MRP of ₹2,000 sold for ₹200 looks like a huge bargain, but the real value may only be ₹200. Q. Some manufacturers set very high MRPs to create the appearance of large discounts. What are your thoughts on this practice and its impact on the consumers? It's like calling a ₹50 pen a ₹500 pen and then shouting “90% OFF!” It misleads consumers and destroys trust. In healthcare, where people can possibly buy under stress, this is especially unfair. Q. Critics argue that MRP can discourage price competition among retailers. Do you think the system inadvertently promotes uniform pricing? While the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) ensures a cap on how much consumers can be charged, its effect on actual pricing varies across different sectors. In some cases, strict adherence to MRP leads to near uniform pricing among sellers, limiting the scope for price competition. However, this dynamic shifts noticeably in online marketplaces, where vendors often set prices below the MRP to attract and retain customers. This practice fosters active competition and allows buyers to benefit from reduced prices. In contrast, the scenario is different in corporate hospitals and retail pharmacies. These establishments tend to stock medical device brands with higher MRPs, which translate into larger profit margins for sellers. Patients, especially those seeking medical devices, rarely encounter alternative choices or competing brands, resulting in a lack of price transparency. This limited availability creates a marketplace imbalance, discouraging genuine price competition and leaving consumers with fewer options. As a result, patients may end up paying more, without access to competitive pricing or the ability to compare products based on value. Q. Does MRP restrict pricing flexibility for businesses, especially in a highly competitive market? A bit, yes. Once printed, the MRP can't be changed easily. If costs rise or fall suddenly, businesses can't adjust quickly. It's like being stuck with last season's price tag. Q. What reforms could make the MRP system more realistic and effective? A simple, powerful fix is what we have long recommended: Cap trade margins based on the import‑landed price, not on an inflated MRP. Why? Because some products enter India at ₹100 but apply an MRP of ₹1,000 just to offer huge margins to hospitals or retailers. This pushes hospitals to choose the product with the highest margin, not the best quality or best price as best value for patients. If margins are capped on the real cost, hospitals will choose based on quality, safety and value – which is exactly what patients deserve. Q. Should India move towards a system based more on Suggested Retail Price (SRP) rather than mandatory MRP? For many products, a Suggested Retail Price (SRP) could work well. It gives guidance as well as allows healthy competition. But, for essential medical devices – like insulin syringes, oximeters or BP monitors – MRP still protects patients from being overcharged. Q. What are your thoughts on the government's recent proposal to link MRP to reasonable costs plus margins? Although the idea seems reasonable, it is not practical or effective when applied in reality. Previous efforts in the pharmaceutical industry have mostly failed because there were no consistent and fair reviews of pricing and compensation between regulators and manufacturers. As a result, many manufacturers stopped producing medicines at unsustainable prices or compromised on input quality and manufacturing processes to stay afloat. This ultimately reduced consumers' access to high-quality medicines from reputable manufacturers. Q. Do you believe the MRP system will remain relevant in the future or will pricing transparency evolve in different ways? Yes, but it will evolve. We may see digital MRPs, QR‑based price checks and more transparent online pricing. But the core idea – protecting consumers from overcharging – will always matter. Q. What message would you like to convey to the readers? India needs ethical manufacturers who genuinely want to offer good‑quality, affordable alternatives to expensive imported brands. But, unlike buying a TV or mobile phone – where you can compare prices, shop around and negotiate – patients in hospitals rarely get that choice. Hospitals often push medical devices at full MRP without offering any discounts and prefer brands that give them the highest margins. This sidelines ethical Indian manufacturers who offer fairer, lower‑MRP products. This is why we strongly advocate capping trade margins based on the real import‑landed price. It levels the playing field, encourages hospitals to choose products for quality rather than margin, and ensures patients get

WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH, (IAS Retd.) Former and First Chief Information Commissioner, Government of India Mr Habibullah has been a member of the Indian Administrative Service since 1968. During his service, he was the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Ministry of Textiles and Department of Consumer Affairs. He has authored several books and received the Rajiv Gandhi Award for Excellence in Secularism in 1994. He also received the gold medal for distinguished service from the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir in 1996. He has a Bachelor's degree in history from St. Stephens College, New Delhi and a Master's degree in history from the University of Delhi. Q. Why is product safety still an underestimated issue in India? The difficulty with the Indian economy is it started off as a socialist economy. While there's nothing wrong with a socialist economy and there are successful socialist economies, the history of the Indian economy is that it emerged from a colonial economic heritage into a socialist structure – this means that it was concentrated with the government. Hence, consumers were historically treated as beneficiaries rather than economic drivers. Consequently, they were expected to be grateful for what they got rather than being the ones who dictate what they get. However, the consumer cannot merely be a beneficiary – he is actually the mainstay of the economy. What he buys is what governs the running of the economy. The consumer's preference is the basis of the economic structure in a free economy. It is with the concerted efforts and dedication of various consumer activists and organisations that the concept shifted to putting the consumer at the centre of the economy. We still have to strive to ensure that the consumer gets safe products what the consumer wants, not what the government wants the consumer to get as safe products! Q. What are the biggest gaps in the current product safety ecosystem? India today possesses a reasonably developed institutional framework for product safety and consumer protection, supported by legislation such as the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which has a dedicated chapter on product liability and the presence of multiple regulatory bodies including the recent development in establishing for the first time the Central Consumer Protection Authority are landmark milestones on consumer protection. In that sense, the structural elements of a product safety ecosystem are largely in place. The more pressing gaps lie in how effectively these mechanisms are understood, accessed and utilised. A central challenge remains limited consumer awareness. Despite the availability of legal safeguards, grievance redressal mechanisms and regulatory oversight, many consumers are either unaware of their rights or uncertain about how to exercise them. Institutions cannot function optimally if the very stakeholders they are designed to protect do not actively engage with them. Significant efforts are being made by the Department of Consumer Affairs, regulators and civil society organisations to address this deficit. Yet awareness is not merely about information dissemination; it also involves cultivating confidence and assertiveness among consumers to question unsafe products, report defects and seek remedies when harm occurs. This is because unless a consumer demands safety, quality and accountability, nobody is going to respond. Because naturally, the focus of a capitalist is not to benefit of the consumer. The consumer is only a means by which he can make profits. Therefore, even the capitalist has to be made to realise that he's not going to get any profit unless the consumer is satisfied. It is therefore not enough that consumer protection tools exist – consumers must feel empowered and motivated to use them. Q. Is the product liability framework strong enough to protect consumers? India's consumer protection architecture provides mechanisms intended to hold manufacturers and sellers accountable for defective or unsafe products. Yet, the practical effectiveness of these provisions is closely linked to consumer awareness and the accessibility of the existing redressal systems. A framework may be robust on paper, but its deterrent and corrective value diminishes if consumers are unaware of their rights or hesitant to invoke available remedies. At the same time, consumer participation cannot substitute for strong institutions. For example, the RTI Act contains all the guarantors of consumer protection. But, the consumer must himself be aware of his rights and also of the facilities available to enforce his rights. Once that starts happening, then product liability will also become effective. Q. Are safety failures more due to lack of regulation or weak implementation of existing laws? I wouldn't call it safety failure. I would say that consumer protection to the extent intended has not taken place. But these processes are slow and the economy has to adjust to it. And, if you look back on it, the consumer protection laws only started coming in the 1980s, which is not a very long established legal structure. A fundamental principle is that safety is not a concession extended by the government or industry; it is an inherent right of the consumer. Regulatory institutions, policymakers and market participants must continuously reinforce this understanding. Consider routine retail experiences. If we find that a purchased product is not up to the mark, we can ask to return it. While many stores accept the return, some sellers decline returns or refunds by citing 'store policy'. This is against the law. While commercial policies may govern discretionary returns, they cannot override statutory consumer rights in cases involving defective, unsafe, misrepresented or substandard products. Where a product is genuinely deficient or not as promised, consumers are entitled to prompt appropriate remedies under the law. Q. Why does India still lack a strong product recall culture? Recalls do occur, and there have been instances where manufacturers – Tata Nano is a case in point – have taken corrective action upon identifying defects. Such developments indicate that the foundations of a recall mechanism are emerging within the country's consumer protection landscape. However, recalls remain relatively infrequent and often lack the visibility and systemic consistency seen in more mature markets.

ASOK KUMAR G, IAS Retd Former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt of India, Former Chief Vigilance Officer, Airports Authority of India Mr Asok Kumar belongs to the 1991 batch IAS, Telangana Cadre. He retired as Special Secretary & Director General, National Mission for Clean Ganga. He has held several other important positions such as Additional Secretary and Mission Director, National Water Mission, Ministry of Jal Shakti; Director in the Ministry of Power, in GoI; Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Principal Secretary, Housing etc. in Govt of AP/Telangana. During his tenure in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, he set-up the Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau (AAIB). He was in the Board of Directors of Air India and Pawan Hans and also played a key role in drafting the National Civil Aviation Policy, reviving the then ailing airline industry and aviation in general. While in NWM, he started the successful water conservation campaign, 'Catch The Rain' and is popularly known as the 'Rain Man of India'. Q. Was the IndiGo meltdown an unforeseeable crisis or a result of regulatory gaps? I feel that it was indeed a preventable, foreseeable crisis which got amplified by regulatory and systemic gaps and over-confidence of the airlines concerned. When any system is stretched to its extreme limits, leaving no slack or buffer to absorb any unforeseen exigencies, it is bound to snap one day. Indigo's much touted super-efficient model with more than 100% utilization of its resources like (wo)men and material, without caring for their stress fatigue or rest, to achieve high-load factor and tight turnaround time was a ticking time-bomb bound to explode one day. Am quite surprised why DGCA, as a regulator, failed to see it coming, when the signs of the imminent shock were patent all over. December month of any year has fog issues in many cities, which can cause cancellations and disruptions in mornings, particularly in Delhi. A disruption in any sector from Delhi has a cascading effect on the entire day's schedule. Over ambitious, very tight schedules with no slack is a sure recipe for a potential disaster. (SpiceJet almost collapsed on 15 December 2014, but scraped through with a proactive MoCA's help.) Though the FDTL notification was issued many months ahead, it is difficult to understand why DGCA was not following up for its implementation. It should have insisted on an implementation action plan from airlines and monitored it. If monitored properly, it could have red flagged the slackness in its implementation. DGCA, like most of the regulators in India, preferred to have a reactive than a proactive, preventive oversight. They were also lulled into inaction by the big market dominance of Indigo and not-so effective or enforced consumer rights protection norms, poor consumer awareness and less powerful/active air traveller's forums. As a regulator, DGCA should use forward-looking resilience metrics like minimum spare aircraft ratios or crew reserve requirements for realistic slot allocations while approving new schedules, instead of blindly incentivizing any scheduled airlines' breakneck expansion plans, without providing for buffers to absorb any unexpected shocks. Leading airlines of the world generally build resilience into everyday operations – not just efficiency, while Indigo was, I would say, obsessed and prided on its lean inventory model. Their model stressed on maximum utilization of its resources for maximized efficiency for maximizing its profits, conscious of its dominance in the sector, leading to a why-we-care-for- customers attitude. There are many predictive analysis tools available, which can do what-if risk analysis to simulate situations arising from sudden shortage of aircraft or crew or other exigencies and help be ready with a Plan B to counter, whenever it happens. DGCA should use these technological solutions while approving tight schedules. DGCA should also keep consumer rights protection and basic facilities of the passengers in mind while dealing with the profit-motivated private aircraft and airport operators. The Indigo meltdown was due to a complex concoction of overzealous/over bearing/profit motive driven Indigo management and the patent regulatory gaps of DGCA, the regulator. Q. What lessons should non-aviation regulators – banking, insurance, food, telecom – take from the IndiGo episode? The IndiGo episode offers many lessons to regulators in sectors like banking, insurance, food, telecom, power etc. Any model that stresses on overstretched efficiency, without buffers or slackness to absorb shocks, is prone to crash some time. Indigo's model of ultra tight ambitious schedules and over 100% utilization of men and material resources to maximize profit worked most of the time, but when an unexpected stress came it, there was a complete meltdown. Regulators in telecom and power sector face this often. If the systems are designed to carry normal load only, when there is a sudden surge in demand, the systems collapse. In telecom sector, when there is greater need for bandwidth availability, say at times of national emergency or disaster or when results of popular exams come out, etc., we have experienced severe disruptions. In power sector, in peak winter or summer, spikes in power requirement have led to disruptions. Regulators in the food sector should ensure adequate buffer in local warehouses to handle unexpected demand surges due to national calamities or war or logistic shocks like disruption in movement. Just-in-time inventory management is good for maximizing the profits, but can cause catastrophes in an event of disruption. The crisis during Covid period or during natural disasters or the 26/11 attack are some examples. Supply chain crisis can lead to economic downfall or even regime changes, as we are seeing now. Regulators in insurance and banking sectors have to be aware of the need of buffer liquidity availability to help out during disaster periods. Remember the disruptions during the notebandi due inadequate stocks in ATMs. Q. We should appreciate that adequate buffer is an insurance not inefficiency! Sometimes, firms can be legally compliant, but operationally brittle. For example, in banking sector, banks may be meeting capital ratios but may have concentrated funding sources or non-diverse exposures to spread the risks which can cause

Nakul Pasricha President and CEO of Pharma Secure Mr Nakul Pasricha is a passionate advocate of making pharmaceutical supply chains safer through standards-led authentication and traceability solutions. He is the President and CEO of Pharma Secure, a global leader in pharmaceutical supply chain traceability and serialisation with the end goal of enabling safety and authenticity in pharmaceuticals. It works with leading pharmaceutical makers to track and verify their supply chains and ensure the authenticity of their drugs. Mr Pasricha has also served as the President of the Authentication Solution Providers' Association (ASPA) from 2019 to 2023 and continues to be a member of its Governing Body. ASPA is a non-profit based in Delhi that works against counterfeiting in India, by building authentication eco-systems. We present an interview with Mr Pasricha as sourced from www.indiaspend.com/. When we talk about spurious drugs in India, what are we talking about? The CDSCO’s 2009 study was the first such comprehensive study that was done in India to measure the extent of spurious and substandard drugs. It was conducted again, as an update, in 2015. The outcome was similar, where they found about 0.3% of drug samples to be spurious and about 3% to be substandard. However, other studies have been done, including a comprehensive study around the world by the WHO in 2018, which found one out of every 10 drugs sampled [in low- and middle-income countries] to be spurious (which they call falsified), or substandard. So, it is a tremendous problem. Other estimates are as high as 20%, or 30%. ASPA conducted our own meta study, where we just looked at reports of incidents of spurious or substandard drugs in India, and at the number of such reports across the country. That number jumped by 47% from 2020 to 2021, which is the last year for which we have data with us. So, this problem has been brewing. And it is a problem that I believe has been, at least domestically, not given the importance and the attention that it needs in order to save patients' lives. What does that translate into, let's say in terms of the number of samples in any study? We didn't do our own sampling. We just looked at the media reports of such incidents that were coming out independently, where it had been discovered, catalogued and reported that spurious or substandard drugs were being sold in the market. Just by that number, you can see that the percentage is increasing. To get an accurate number across the length and breadth of India is, of course, a big challenge, which is why the CDSCO study stands there. There have been other researchers that have come to India and conducted studies and found up to 10% of the samples that they checked were substandard. But it's been over a decade since such a study was done. When you say 'spurious' and 'substandard', do these terms go together? Or is there a distinction between the two? That's right. This problem is very important. It used to be that you would just call [spurious drugs] counterfeit. But counterfeit as a term can also be mixed up with the intellectual property rights issue, which is well documented. So, 'spurious' really means a drug that is falsely labelled, to position it or represent it as being made by a genuine manufacturer. It will often not have any active pharmaceutical ingredient in it, it will not be effective, and it will be something that is intended to deceive the buyer or the patient. 'Substandard' is something that typically will be from the manufacturer that it claims to be from, but may not have the right quality of or enough ingredients, so its efficacy is under question. The CDSCO study had found just 11 samples out of 23,000+ samples to be spurious, and you said the 2015 survey figure is somewhat similar. Is that something to worry about, or is that something to be sanguine about? Obviously, even one life lost is a tragedy and we must do something, we must be more vigilant in terms of ensuring quality and that we don't have spurious or substandard medicines. 'Spurious' is a term that is not commonly used outside of the technical context. So, I'll just switch to 'counterfeiting' and take you on a journey across other industries in India, as a way of answering your question. One out of three auto parts sold in the aftermarket are considered to be counterfeit. These are industry figures. In fast-moving consumer goods, studies have found up to 30% [are counterfeit]. In nutraceuticals, an Assocham study reportedly found 60% to 70%. Pesticide, seeds, and fertilisers, again, 60 to 70%. So, to be very honest, if you tell me that in pharmaceuticals across India – and I'm not talking about the reputed practices in urban centres where ethical and careful doctors may be practising, I'm talking about tier 2, tier 3 towns – the rate of spurious drugs is 0.3%, I would be a little bit sceptical of that, given how widespread counterfeits are in other industries and also given the immense profit margins that unethical bad actors stand to make. In fact, statistics I saw from one of the large pharma companies, among their presentations, said that being a drug counterfeiter can actually be more profitable and lucrative than being a heroin distributor. So that's the kind of profit that people stand to make, and that surely may be a lure for many criminals. So, I don't think we should let the statistics necessarily make us feel good. I would still continue to be very vigilant. But there is some good news. I've been in this industry, looking at this issue right from the 2009 CDSCO report. In 2009, actually, there was a very prominent incident of counterfeit, spurious drugs landing up in Nigeria, marked as 'Made in India'. The question was raised to the Indian government, on why these fake drugs are coming from our country. An investigation was launched and it was found that these drugs never originated from India,

Dr. SUDHIR P. SRIVASTAVA, Founder, CEO and Chairman of SS Innovations Dr. Sudhir Srivastava is one of the foremost global experts in robotic cardiac surgery. Till date, he has performed the largest number of robotic cardiac procedures in the entire world. Dr. Srivastava, along with ten additional physicians, founded Alliance Hospital Ltd, a center of excellence in the treatment of cardiovascular disease, in Odessa, Texas in July 2003 and served as its chairman for four years. While there, he performed the world's first single vessel beating heart TECAB in the United States. Dr. Srivastava is an active member of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, AATS, the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) and is a founder of the Robotic Revascularization Society. Dr. Srivastava has made it his mission to make available his skill to all those with the desire to learn these minimally invasive techniques. He has trained hundreds of teams around the world and is constantly trying to find ways to improve the field of robotic assisted surgery. Alongside his tireless efforts and determination, Dr. Srivastava continues to push the envelope of surgical science as we know it today! Q. What does 'Make in India' denote for a genuine manufacturer like your organisation? For a genuine manufacturer, Make in India is far more than a mere slogan, it is a commitment to vision, innovation, and national pride. In our case, the SSI Mantra surgical robotic system represents the perfect embodiment of what 'Make in India' truly stands for. We did not import a system, rebrand it, or cosmetically modify it. Instead, we built one of the world's most advanced multi-arm surgical robots entirely through indigenous research, engineering, clinically validated and development conducted in India. Our journey began with a simple belief: India must not remain just a consumer of advanced medical technology. India must become a global creator. This required us to invest years into R&D, clinical validation, manufacturing infrastructure, rigorous testing, and regulatory pathways. We engaged Indian scientists, engineers, surgeons, designers, and software developers to build an ecosystem capable of supporting a product as complex as a surgical robot. Today, we are proud that the SSI Mantra platform is not only performing surgeries across India but has also begun its global footprint. For us, Make in India represents: True indigenous innovation rather than cosmetic assembly Engineering excellence built by Indian talent Accessible and affordable technology that can reach Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities An 'Atmanirbhar Bharat', where India leads from the front A commitment to serve humanity, not just the marketplace This is why misrepresentation of imported products is not just a commercial concern it undermines the spirit and sacrifices behind genuine Indian innovation. Q. How widespread do you think is the practice of mislabelling/relabelling imported products as 'Made in India'? While exact figures are hard to quantify, what we are witnessing is a concerning rise in the trend of relabelling fully imported medical devices as Indian-made. In some cases, products arrive fully assembled, undergo negligible local intervention, and are then branded as domestic innovations. Unfortunately, this practice is no longer limited to low-tier devices; even high-end high-value medical equipment is seeing such misrepresentation. This not only distorts healthy competition but also confuses hospitals and government entities that genuinely wish to support Indian manufacturers as part of the national policy agenda. As companies like ours invest years and significant capital into genuine manufacturing, relabelled imports dilute the credibility of true 'Make in India' efforts. Q. Why do you think unscrupulous elements are able to pass off imported products as Indian-made? How does this affect the market? Such entities exploit regulatory grey areas or gaps in enforcement. Importing a finished product and changing its exterior branding is far quicker than building an indigenous platform, especially something as complex as a surgical robot. Without rigorous verification mechanisms, these products easily enter the market under the light of Indian innovation. This affects the market in several harmful ways: 1. Unfair competition – Genuine manufacturers who take risks and invest heavily in R&D face artificially undercut pricing by relabelled imports. 2. Customer deception – Patients and Hospitals are misled into believing they are supporting Indian innovation when they are not. 3. Barrier to true innovation – When copying or relabelling is easier and more profitable than innovations, it discourages long-term research and indigenous manufacturing. 4. Risk to patient safety – Imported devices with unknown sources or poor traceability compromise clinical reliability. Ultimately, such practices harm the entire ecosystem, innovators, clinicians, patients, and India's global credibility. Q. How effective has the government been in addressing the issue of misrepresentation of imported devices? The government has shown strong intent in strengthening the medical device ecosystem, but enforcement still needs expansion. Frameworks like the Medical Devices Rules 2017, the Quality Management System (QMS) requirements, and the push towards domestic manufacturing are important steps. However, the openness of the Indian market means that unless regulators enforce strict origin verification, misrepresentation can easily slip through the cracks. That said, I believe the government is responsive, and our recent submission to CDSCO is to support this effort ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability. Strengthening enforcement is not only in the interest of domestic manufacturers; it is essential for patient safety and national reputation. Q. What steps should regulators take to curb this practice and protect genuine domestic players in the interest of consumers? Several steps can significantly enhance transparency: Verifiable Local Value Addition – Mandate quantifiable thresholds, not just documentation to verify real local manufacturing. Full Disclosure of Origin: Manufacturers must clearly declare the origin of their: Components l Subsystems Firmware l Hardware architecture Periodic Audits: Surprise inspections of manufacturing sites will prevent token local activity from being presented as full manufacturing. Stringent Penalties for Misrepresentation – A strong deterrence mechanism is essential to dissuade relabelling malpractice. Traceability Standards – Every major device should have a traceable history from component sourcing to final assembly. These measures will promote a fair, transparent market that rewards real