Kerala plans vigilance scrutiny of previous drug purchases

Kerala Health Minister K Muraleedharan has announced a vigilance investigation into medicine purchases made under previous Left Democratic Front governments, placing transactions involving Kannur-based Taurus Remedies Private Limited under scrutiny.

The announcement follows an escalating dispute over the state’s supply of a lower-cost generic medicine to children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Muraleedharan said procurement decisions taken through the Kerala Medical Services Corporation Limited (KMSCL) during the previous administration would be examined.

Taurus Remedies has been drawn into the controversy through allegations of links to Sudheer Nambiar, son of former Health Minister and CPI(M) leader P K Sreemathy. Those alleged connections have not been independently established, and the existence of any relationship would not, by itself, demonstrate wrongdoing in public procurement.

Muraleedharan questioned the company’s eligibility to supply medicines and the circumstances in which KMSCL purchased its products. He suggested that the inquiry would examine whether procurement procedures were followed and whether any improper benefits arose from the transactions.

The Health Department has begun gathering information about purchases involving Taurus Remedies. A formal vigilance referral was still being contemplated, rather than a completed investigation with established findings, according to the details available on Saturday.

Purchases valued at approximately Rs 4 crore between 2020 and 2026 have been identified for examination. That figure describes the reported value of supplies, not a quantified loss to the government or evidence of corruption. The company has not been found guilty of misconduct.

The proposed scrutiny marks a counteroffensive by the Congress-led government after three former health ministers, Sreemathy, K K Shailaja and Veena George, challenged its handling of SMA medication. Their criticism centres on the distribution of medicine bearing labels referring to clinical trials or physicians’ samples.

The former ministers have demanded an investigation into how those packages reached families and whether established safeguards were observed. They also questioned a meeting between Muraleedharan and representatives of Natco Pharma, the manufacturer of the generic formulation now being supplied.

The medicine at the centre of the dispute is risdiplam, used to treat SMA, a genetic condition that causes progressive muscle weakness. The government has moved towards Natco’s lower-cost formulation, marketed as Natsmart, instead of the original medicine sold by Roche under the Evrysdi brand.

Muraleedharan has defended the change, saying it followed expert advice and that treating doctors had addressed parents’ concerns. He maintained that the generic medicine had regulatory clearance and that the government would continue supplying it.

He also said he had not accepted money from any company or improperly favoured a manufacturer. Explaining his meeting with Natco representatives, he linked it to documentation concerning a corporate social responsibility initiative associated with SAT Hospital in Thiruvananthapuram.

Medical specialists involved in assessing the treatment have supported the generic formulation’s suitability. Their assurances, however, have not ended questions about the packaging of particular supplies and the process through which they were distributed.

CPI(M) state secretary M V Govindan has pressed the government to explain why packages were withdrawn if the medicine was considered safe. He has also raised questions about testing, regulatory procedures and whether parents received adequate information before the change.

The minister said the disputed supplies were retrieved to prevent confusion and anxiety, rather than because the formulation had been judged unsafe. He argued that concerns over the treatment had been addressed by doctors directly involved in patient care.

Muraleedharan has promised to provide further clarification in the Legislative Assembly on October 26, offering opposition legislators another opportunity to question the procurement decision and the administration of the medicine.

The two controversies concern different sets of transactions. The proposed vigilance examination relates to purchases during LDF administrations, while the dispute over generic risdiplam concerns decisions and distribution under the current government.

Sreemathy has rejected Muraleedharan’s response to the former ministers’ criticisms. The opposition continues to seek explanations about the clinical-trial markings and the handling of medicines supplied to vulnerable children.

The proposed inquiry could also require examination of tender conditions, supplier qualifications, purchase orders and payment records. Any determination of irregularities would depend on documentary evidence and findings from the competent investigating authorities.

KMSCL is the state agency responsible for centralised procurement and distribution of medicines to public healthcare institutions. Its purchase records and supplier documentation would be central to establishing the circumstances of the earlier transactions.