Maharashtra FDA Calls for Transparent Pricing After Survey Reveals 2,800% Markup on IV Sets
- Nishadil
- September 17, 2026
- 0 Comments
- 4 minutes read
- 0 Views
- Save
- Follow Topic
Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe urges Centre to curb opaque margins on medical consumables
A state‑wide survey uncovered sky‑high markups on hospital devices – up to 2,800% on an IV set – prompting Maharashtra’s FDA chief to ask the Centre for a pricing review.
When the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) opened its books on the cost of everyday hospital consumables, the numbers were staggering. An IV set that a private hospital bought for just ₹11.05 was being sold under the same brand with an MRP of ₹325 – a margin that translates to roughly 2,800 %.
Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, who heads the state FDA, said the gap is “simply not acceptable” for anyone – be it patients, hospitals, or regulators. He has now asked the Union government to step in, arguing that pricing should be fair, transparent and ethical.
The findings stem from a market survey carried out by the State Price Monitoring Resource Unit, an arm of the Maharashtra FDA. The study covered a range of consumables used in inpatient care – IV sets, syringes, nebuliser kits, oxygen‑mask kits and more. Its results have already been forwarded to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) for further scrutiny.
One of the most eye‑opening cases involved a Medifusion IV set made by Mediplus in Haryana. The hospital’s purchase price was a modest ₹11.05, yet the printed MRP on the box read ₹325. Another example: a 10 ml syringe from Lifelong Meditech cost the hospital ₹6.75, but its MRP was ₹57.20. An adult nebuliser mask kit from Vinjoh Healthcare was listed at ₹45, yet patients were reportedly paying as much as ₹652.
Even other manufacturers were not spared. Lyvofusion’s IV set showed a markup of about 2,091 %. “A trade margin of 2,800 % is, by any standard, unacceptable,” Mundhe told NDTV, adding that such figures erode trust in the health‑care system.
But the commissioner is quick to clarify his intent. He isn’t looking to cripple the industry with draconian caps; rather, he wants a pricing framework that lets companies earn a reasonable profit while keeping the cost to patients in check. “There has to be a fair trade, a fair margin of profit,” he said, “but it cannot be opaque, it cannot be unacceptable to consumers, regulators, or even manufacturers.”
To achieve that, Mundhe suggests a deep‑dive into the whole supply chain – from raw‑material costs and manufacturing expenses to the profits sought by intermediaries. Only after understanding each layer can the government decide what, if any, margin ceiling is appropriate.
The next step, according to the commissioner, will be a consultative process involving industry players, consumer groups and the regulatory authorities. Any changes, he warns, must follow the prescribed legal procedures.
India’s current regulatory scaffolding, the Drugs (Prices Control) Order of 2013, gives the NPPA the power to fix ceiling prices for certain scheduled medical devices. For products that aren’t scheduled, a 10 % ceiling over a 12‑month period applies. Yet the order doesn’t cover every category, leaving room for wide price swings – a loophole that the Maharashtra survey has now highlighted.
The central government has previously imposed price caps on high‑cost items such as coronary stents and knee implants, and during the COVID‑19 pandemic it used trade‑margin rationalisation for essential devices like oxygen concentrators. The NPPA is reportedly comparing the Maharashtra data with company filings to see if similar excesses exist elsewhere.
Similar concerns have been raised by drug‑control bodies in Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, suggesting that the issue is not confined to one state. For patients, the problem is even more personal – when you’re admitted to a hospital, you rarely get a clear breakdown of how much each consumable costs, making it almost impossible to shop around or challenge a bill.
In short, the Maharashtra FDA’s call for intervention shines a light on a murky part of the health‑care ecosystem. Whether the Centre will act swiftly, and what form any new pricing guidelines will take, remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the conversation about fairness, transparency and ethical profit in medical device pricing is finally getting the attention it deserves.
Editorial note: Nishadil may use AI assistance for news drafting and formatting. Readers can report issues from this page, and material corrections are reviewed under our editorial standards.