A health regulatory authority in Uttarakhand on Wednesday directed yoga guru Ramdev’s business conglomerate Patanjali Ayurved to stop manufacturing five products citing misleading advertisements, The Telegraph reported.

The Uttarakhand Ayurveda and Unani Licensing Authority directed Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy to stop the production of BPgrit, Madhugrit, Thyrogrit, Lipidom and Eyegrit Gold, which it had promoted as treatments for blood pressure, diabetes, goitre, glaucoma and high cholesterol.

The authority passed the order in response to a complaint by a Kerala-based ophthalmologist named KV Babu. It has asked Patanjali to seek fresh approval for the products after submitting revised formulation sheets and label claims.

Advertisement

“We have constituted a team that will review the formulation sheet of these drugs once the authorities at Divya Pharmacy submit the same to us,” GCS Jangpangi, licence officer at the authority, told The Hindu. “They have also been asked to submit a revised label claim to the department within a week.”

In September, the state Ayurveda and Unani Licensing Authority had directed Patanjali to refrain from advertising the five formulations.

Babu, in his complaint, had claimed that the advertisements violated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Magic Remedies Act. The laws prohibit advertisements that promote the treatment of certain diseases and conditions, including blood pressure, glaucoma, goitre and diabetes.

Advertisement

He objected to an advertisement for Lipidom claiming that the product reduced cholesterol in a week.

Meanwhile, Patanjali claimed that all products by Divya Pharmacy adhere to prescribed standards and fulfil all statutory processes. “We are being attacked by those who run the business of confusion and fear in the world of medicine,” the company alleged.

Patanjali said that there were clear signs of resistance to the company from an “anti-Ayurveda drug mafia” and asserted that it would not let the “conspiracy” succeed. The company added that it would seek action against the complainant, as the concerns that he raised had already been resolved.