![]() ![]() The petitioner claimed that the 4th respondent relied on the report filed by the Government Analyst, CDL under Form 13. They requested that the sample be retested under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the Director CDL, Kolkata, the Appellate Authority under the Act. The petitioner again submitted their submissions on. The petitioner received another show cause notice dated along with the report in Form 13 dated 6/39 from the Drugs Inspector, CDSCO, South Zone, Chennai. It 5/39 was stated that the date of sampling was on, the date of receipt in Laboratory was on, the date of Testing was between and and the date of report was. ![]() It was claimed that the drug is light sensitive and thermolible drug and is required to be stored below 300C whereas the temperature in Chennai crosses 450C. It was claimed that the Drugs Inspector also visited the factory and made detailed enquiry. On testing, the Government Analyst declared 'Nil' content. One such sample was tested by Dr.S.Gopinath, Drugs Inspector, CDSCO, South Zone, Chennai, from the premises of the warehouse K.K.Nagar. It was claimed that after sometime a different Drug Inspector tested the samples from different hospitals. In accordance with the statutory resolutions, the drug was tested by the 3rd and 4th respondents. The petitioner then supplied a large quantity of this product throughout Tamil Nadu. But the petitioner was still asked to supply the said tablets as Coated Tablets in blister packs. The petitioner addressed the 3rd and 4th respondents namely, the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., and the General Manager (Drugs) of Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., that this tablet is usually supplied as loose Uncoated Tablets in a bottle pack.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |