Justice On Prescription: Why Lawsuits Shouldn't Be First Warning

The world gasps every time a miracle drug turns into a medical headline. India yawns. After all, we have perfected the art of selling antibiotics without a slip, tossing back pills like festive sweets and swallowing silence with our morning chai. We treat regulatory frameworks as fine print no one bothers to read. Each new headline doesn't shock us; it only holds up a mirror we choose to rather not see.

Imagine this; you take an injection marketed as the miracle that will melt away your stubborn fat, brighten your skin, or a pill that promises to steady your blood sugar and help you feel like your best self. The fine print? Across the world, questions are being raised about whether patients are truly warned of the risks that may accompany such “miracle” treatments. And while the debates and disputes continue, one truth remains clear; in India, it cannot be denied that most of us live with a different but equally worrying reality; regulatory gaps. Our problem is not just the drug itself, but the weak systems meant to protect us from it. Pharmacies hand out prescription drugs without prescriptions. Antibiotics are sold like candy. And patients, too, carry blame; popping antibiotics like toffees, sharing prescriptions like gossip, and treating pills as quick fixes rather than last resorts. Ignorance and indifference fuel the crisis as much as weak regulation does.

And if you think this is a uniquely foreign story, think again. We have been here before. Once-celebrated painkillers withdrawn after cardiovascular concerns. Long-running litigation over everyday consumer products and health risks. The unchecked misuse of antibiotics in India, fuelling resistance faster than regulation can respond. Different drugs, same story.

So here is the harder question; is justice really served only when litigation extracts millions in damages? Or should justice begin earlier; at the stage of transparent trials, honest warnings, vigilant regulators, and meaningful informed consent? The very design of law is deterrence, but deterrence works only if the risk of punishment outweighs the profits of negligence.

And in India, the silence is louder. We don't yet see long lines of plaintiffs, but should that lull us into believing our regulators have our backs? We import the drugs, we follow the trends, but when it comes to consumer protection, our vigilance is far thinner. Clinical trial disclosures remain jargon-ridden PDFs few patients ever read, warning labels are either missing or unreadable, and post-marketing surveillance is treated more like a formality than a lifeline. When was the last time you saw a medical professional in India hand over a leaflet explaining what your shiny new medicine might actually do to your organs, apart from what the ads promise? We rely on blind faith; until blindness becomes literal.

This is not a call for paranoia. It is a call for accountability. India needs to wake up to the idea that pharmaceutical regulation is not just about approving new molecules faster to “keep up with the West,” but about ensuring that patients are not experimental subjects in the process. At the very least, our system should demand-

Transparent warnings that don't bury catastrophic risks under the umbrella of “rare.”

Mandatory patient education before high-risk drugs are prescribed; even if it takes an extra 10 minutes.

Independent post-marketing surveillance that doesn't rely solely on the same companies that profit from the sales.

Meaningful informed consent, not just a signature on a rushed form.

The system should not just punish after harm but build accountability into every stage; from clinical trials, to doctor disclosures, to how pharmacies dispense drugs. Litigation cannot remain the only safety valve of the system.

And while we talk about regulators, let's not forget the pharmacies. In India, Schedule H prescription drugs are still widely sold over the counter, a concern flagged by public health experts for years. Antibiotics, even steroids are often dispensed without so much as a raised eyebrow, and no one bats an eyelid until resistance builds, side effects erupt, or lives are lost. It is the perfect storm; a regulatory framework that looks strong on paper, a marketplace that flouts it daily, and a patient population largely unaware it is being played.

Here's the bitter truth; you cannot sue your way back to eyesight. Courtrooms can write verdicts, but they cannot rewrite the retina. No judge can restore what regulators failed to protect. A payout is not prevention, and “rare side effect” is cold comfort to the one in ten thousand who pays the price.

The larger message is this: drugs are not just chemicals; they are contracts; between science and society, corporations and consumers, law and life. When one side hides clauses in fine print, the contract fails. And when the contract fails, it should not take an avalanche of lawsuits for us to wake up in India. We need a system where the warning comes before the harm, not after it.

So yes, some drugs may be today's headline, but they are only one chapter in a much older book. Tomorrow it could be another drug, another “breakthrough,” another miracle we queue up for without asking enough questions. The least we can demand is honesty up front. And if honesty seems too much to ask, then maybe it's time for our regulators, our courts, and yes, even our chemists to remember that justice is not just a postscript; it should be part of the prescription.

Maybe the real wonder drug isn't a pharmaceutical at all. It's corporate amnesia: works fast, comes with no warning label, and regulators seem to prescribe it in bulk.

And finally, accountability is not just a regulatory question; it is a citizen's one too. We cannot keep outsourcing vigilance to courts and regulators while casually self-medicating, hoarding antibiotics, or trusting every glossy promise on a label. Systems may fail, but our choices fuel those failures. Real protection will only come when consumers begin to demand clarity, refuse shortcuts, and treat medicines with the seriousness they deserve. After all, regulation begins at the top, but responsibility begins at home; and maybe the most dangerous pill of all is the one we swallow without asking a single question.

Disclaimer:

This article reflects the author's personal views and is intended solely for general discussion on regulation and consumer protection. It relies on information already in the public domain. It is not intended to allege, imply, or establish wrongdoing by any individual, company, or product, nor should it be interpreted as legal, medical, or professional advice. Any references to cases or controversies are illustrative and should not be read as conclusive statements of fact.