Massive illegal supplies of co-proxamol lead to striking-off and reprimand
The Statutory Committee has ordered the striking-off of
one pharmacist and has reprimanded another for illegal sales of Distalgesic
and Rohypnol.
At its meetings on 18 September 2002, 22 January and 17 February 2003,
the committee inquired into the case of Hasmukhkant Nanji Badiani, of
32 Beechcroft Gardens, Wembley Park, Wembley, Middlesex, and Amal Razouki
Hasan, of 49 Churchill Gardens, London W3. A complaint had been received
from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that co-proxamol
tablets and flunitrazepam had been sold without prescription at Kings
Pharmacy, 104 Edgware Road, London W2. Mr Badiani had been the regular
pharmacist in charge since the premises were registered in his name on
2 June 1995 and Mrs Hasan had been employed as a locum pharmacist at
the pharmacy on certain dates.
It was also alleged that on an unknown date in 1995 the business had
transferred to Timeworth Ltd, but the Registrar had not been notified
and thus the registration of the premises had become void 28 days after
the transfer.
Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared at the hearings on
18 September 2002 and 17 February 2003 to present the facts of the case
to the committee. Fenella Morris, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons
(solicitors) attended to present the facts on 22 January 2003.
David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), represented Mr Badiani,
who was present at the hearings.
David Giles, of counsel, instructed by Salfitti & Co (solicitors),
represented Mrs Hasan, who attended the hearings.
Test purchases
The committee heard that one of the Society’s inspectors had received
information that a prescription-only medicine, Distalgesic (co-proxamol)
tablets, and a Controlled Drug, Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), could be purchased
from Mr Badiani’s pharmacy without a prescription. Arrangements
were made for test purchases to be made by another inspector.
On 13 October 2001 the inspector went to the pharmacy and asked to speak
to the pharmacist. Mr Badiani confirmed he was the pharmacist. The inspector
asked if she could buy some Distalgesic. She was told that a prescription
was needed and asked if she was registered with a doctor. The inspector
said she was not, she was “just passing through” and asked
if that was a problem. Mr Badiani had said it was not, and sold her 200
Distalgesic tablets for £20. He had told her not to tell anybody
that he had supplied them.
The inspector returned to the pharmacy on 27 October 2001 and again asked
if she could speak to the pharmacist. On this occasion, Mrs Hasan was
present and confirmed she was a pharmacist. The inspector asked if she
could buy some Distalgesic and was told she would need a prescription.
Mrs Hasan then asked the inspector if she had bought Distalgesic at the
pharmacy on a previous occasion. The inspector confirmed she had done
so. She was then asked how many she wanted and said she would like two
boxes, which were sold to her for £20.
Returning on 29 October 2001, when Mr Badiani was again present, the
inspector asked whether she could buy some Distalgesic. He asked how
many she wanted; she replied that she wanted 100, which he sold to her
for £10.
The inspector then left the pharmacy, returning shortly with two colleagues.
Mr Badiani was cautioned and indicated that he knew the purpose of their
visit. He admitted he had sold the Distalgesic. In front of the stock
of Distalgesic in the dispensary was a hand-written label “DG — £10
for 100”. Sixty Rohypnol tablets were stored on an open shelf,
in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973.
In addition, some unlicensed medicines were found.
The inspectors carried out an investigation into the pharmacy’s
supplies and sales of Distalgesic and Rohypnol. A discrepancy of 18,180
Distalgesic tablets and 60 Rohypnol tablets was found. Ninety Rohypnol
tablets were said to have been supplied against documents that were not
valid prescriptions, nor had their supply been entered in the prescriptions
register.
Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie,
QC) said that Mr Badiani had admitted the sales of 200 co-proxamol tablets
on 13 October 2001 and 100 on 29 October without a prescription to one
of the Society’s inspectors. His explanation had been that he received
many requests for co-proxamol from people visiting the United Kingdom
who could not obtain it at home. He had regarded the supplies as exports,
for which he believed a prescription was not required.
However, a more compelling account of the transaction on 13 October was
that of the inspector, said the chairman. She had been about to abandon
her request when Mr Badiani had said “I’ll give them to you
but don’t tell anybody I gave them to you”. He added that
when she wanted co-proxamol, he would give them to her.
The committee accepted the inspector’s account of the transaction,
which Mr Badiani said he could not recall, and deduced from it that he
was not mistakenly or naively making sales for export believing a prescription
was not required. Everything pointed to repeated sales of co-proxamol
without prescriptions by Mr Badiani in the clear knowledge that the law
did not permit such sales.
With regard to the admitted discrepancy of some 18,180 co-proxamol tablets,
Mr Badiani had first stated that all had been supplied to patients who
lived overseas. Subsequently, however, he claimed that a former employee
at the pharmacy might have stolen some.
Regular supply
Lord Fraser said it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether
co-proxamol had been stolen and if so, in what quantities. The police
had not been contacted and there had been no criminal proceedings.
The very substantial part of the co-proxamol unaccounted for against
valid prescriptions was explained by the supply by Mr Badiani to visitors
from other countries. On his own admission he had supplied at least
some 11,000 tablets, arguably many more. “This is no de minimis
error,” said Lord Fraser, “ but a calculated and regular
supply contrary to law.”
Turning to the Rohypnol, the chairman said Mr Badiani did not accept
any misconduct on his part although he did accept that he could not account
for some 60 Rohypnol tablets by means of valid prescriptions. It was
agreed that between 1 September 2001 and 29 October 2001, a total of
270 had been ordered by the pharmacy. There had been supplies of 150,
of which it appeared that 90 were supplied against a document that was
not a valid prescription. Mr Badiani had claimed not to have been in
the pharmacy on the date of that supply, although there was, in fact,
no evidence of the date of supply. He had also said he believed that
two packs of 30 were accounted for either by a missing prescription or
by theft from the pharmacy by a former employee.
Lord Fraser pointed out that Rohypnol was a drug liable to be misused
and, if administered surreptitiously to a woman, it could have devastating
consequences: it was known as the “date rape” drug. Accordingly,
particular care should be taken to ensure it was kept safely as the regulations
required, and proper entries should have been made in the register.
Mr Badiani was the pharmacist in charge and the committee found that
he had failed to ensure that Rohypnol was stored in compliance with the
regulations and had failed to account by means of valid prescriptions
for Rohypnol supplied from the pharmacy.
With regard to the unlicensed medicines found on the premises, Mr Badiani
knew they were unlicensed and did not deny they should not have been
in the pharmacy.
Regrettably, the chairman continued, Mr Badiani had shown a cavalier
attitude towards his responsibilities in law as a pharmacist.
The committee directed that his name should be removed from the register.
He had three months in which to appeal.
Turning to the case against Mrs Hasan, Lord Fraser said that, although
she had disputed the fact, the committee was satisfied that Mrs Hasan,
the locum pharmacist in charge on the day of the purchase, had made the
sale of 200 Distalgesic to the inspector. Mrs Hasan had not been a compelling
witness. The committee was concerned that she had been unconvincing and
at times evasive.
The committee ordered that Mrs Hasan should be reprimanded.
Back to Top
|
