It was emphasized before the Court of Appeal yesterday (14) that the decision taken by the National Drug Regulatory Authority to register 08 types of vaccines produced by a Sri Lankan company, which are used for anaesthesia and the treatment of brain-related diseases, without being subject to a six-month monitoring period, is completely against the law. Latest News
Pranitha, and two human rights activists, requested to issue an order invalidating the decision taken by the National Drug Regulatory Authority to register the 8 types of vaccines produced by the concerned private company without subjecting them to a six-month supervision period. N. Varnakulasuriya and Devshan. P. Nil Shantha Sirimanna, a lawyer who appeared for the petitioners, emphasized this when a petition filed by Buddharage was heard.
The hearing was held before a panel of judges of the Appellate Court consisting of Mr Justice Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne and Mr. Shashi Mahendran.
The petitioner’s lawyer stated before the court that the National Medicines Regulatory Authority Act states that before releasing any drug to the market, it should be subject to a six-month surveillance period.
However, the lawyer alleged that the National Drug Regulatory Authority has approved eight types of vaccines produced by the responsible company within a period of two months and that the authorities of the National Drug Regulatory Authority have blatantly violated the relevant Act.
The lawyer of the petitioner alleged that the National Drug Regulatory Authority, which has been appointed to check the quality of medicines, cannot be approved to violate the law in this way and has put the lives of the sick people in danger.
Lawyer Mr. Ravindranath Dabare, who appeared for the Government Medical Officers’ Association, stated before the court that his clients have drawn the attention of the health authorities on many occasions regarding the drugs in question.
The lawyer mentioned that if a problematic situation arises regarding the medicines given to the patients, the responsibility is assigned to the doctors and there have been cases where some doctors have faced lawsuits regarding such matters.
Therefore, the lawyer who appeared for the Government Medical Officers’ Association further stated that he also agrees with the position of the petitioner regarding the process of purchasing these medicines.
Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe, who appeared on behalf of the respondents including the Health Minister, the National Drug Regulatory Authority, who were not named as respondents in the relevant petition, stated before the court that the six-month surveillance period applies to a manufactured medicine if it is commercially released into the market. He said that only
The Deputy Solicitor General said that the accusations made by the petitioners regarding the purchase of vaccines which are the basis of this case are baseless and that he expects to present the facts at length and asked to be given a date for that.
Accepting the request, the bench decided to adjourn the confirmation of further facts regarding this petition until June 20th.
On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Nil Shantha Sirimanna appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the advice of lawyer Niluka Welgama along with lawyer Deshara Gunathilake.
