KUALA LUMPUR, July 29 — Seven medical groups and a Sabah-based general practitioner have filed for judicial review of a government order requiring private clinics to display retail medicine prices, arguing it exceeds ministerial powers and threatens professional medical practice.

The judicial review was filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court last Thursday by the Association of Private Practitioners, Sabah (APPS), the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (Maafim), the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors (Perdim), the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia (FPMPAM), the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners’ Association (MPDPA), the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak (SPMPS), and a Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad

They named Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali, Health Minister Datuk Seri Dzulkefly Ahmad, and the federal government as respondents over the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which took effect on May 1, Code Blue reported.

The applicants argued that the order was made beyond the minister's legal authority, arguing Section 10 of the Act does not apply to medications administered during treatment as authorised under Section 19 of the Poisons Act 1952.

They claimed private medical and dental clinics do not “supply goods or services” in the way described by the PCAPA and consequently beyond its jurisdiction.

Medical and dental treatment is instead a regulated professional process governed by laws such as the Medical Act, Dental Act, Poisons Act, PHFSA, and related regulations, they said.

They also contended that dispensing medication is part of treatment following consultation and diagnosis, not a commercial transaction akin to retail sales.

The applicants noted that drug labelling is already strictly regulated under PHFSA rules, which require proper labelling, storage, and documentation in both clinics and hospitals.

They said if the government intends to regulate treatment costs or prevent profiteering, it should act through the Health Ministry under Sections 106 and 107 of the PHFSA.

They warned the order misrepresents the doctor-patient relationship by treating drug dispensation as a retail sale, bypassing the clinical process.

The groups also said small GP and specialist clinics would be unfairly disadvantaged, as they cannot match pharmacy chains in pricing due to higher costs and lower purchase volumes.

They asked the court to quash the order and stay enforcement pending the outcome of the case, citing potential irreversible harm from prosecutions if the order is later struck down.