• Sanjana Pabbati
  • Kirti Hira
  • A. Sajeli Begum


Therapeutic treatment based on medical devices is providing technologically advanced solutions for the management of several diseases. Thereby continues to grow in market at tremendous rate. However, these treatments also carry significant risk with them, which if neglected can lead to life threatening consequences. Therefore rules and regulations are required for monitoring the entry of such devices into the market. Presently Regulatory bodies governing such regulations are at their initial stage and are improving at each step to safeguard public health as well as to ensure that effective and technologically advanced inventions reach out patient.

Keywords: Drug and Cosmetic Act 1940 and Rules 1945, CDSCO, FDA Regulations.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Medical device reporting for Manufacturers [Internet]. Maryland: Food and Drug Administration; 2013 [cited 2016 Aug 12]. Available from: Devices/DevicesRegul ationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094529.htm
2. The Drug and Cosmetics Act and Rules [Internet]. India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; 2005 [cited 2016 Aug 13]. Available from:
http:// Guidance_ Doc_RC_31-10-2012.pdf
3. Code of Federal Regulations [Internet]. United States: Food and Drug Administration; 2014 [cited 2016 Aug 11]. Available from: onandGuidance/Overview/ucm134499.htm
4. Fox DM, & Zuckerman DM. Regulatory reticence and medical devices. Milbank Q. 2014; 92: 151-9.
5. Buch B. FDA medical device approval: things you didn't learn in medical school or residency. American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead, NJ). 2007; 36: 407-12.
6. Pena C, Bowsher K, Costello A, De Luca R, Doll S, Li K, et al. An overview of FDA medical device regulation as it relates to deep brain stimulation devices. IEEE Trans Neural. Syst.Rehabil. Eng. 2007; 15: 421-4.
7. Samuel AM, Rathi VK, Grauer JN, & Ross JS. How do orthopaedic devices change after their initial FDA premarket approval? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2016; 474: 1053-68.
8. Learn if a Medical Device has been cleared by FDA for marketing [Internet]. United States: Food and Drug Administration; 2014 [cited 2016 Aug 15]. Available from:
9. Rathi VK, Krumholz HM, Masoudi FA, & Ross JS. Characteristics of clinical studies conducted over the total product life cycle of high-risk therapeutic medical devices receiving FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011. JAMA. 2015; 314: 604-12.
10. Scott B. Oversight Overhaul: Eliminating the Premarket Review of Medical Devices and Implementing a Provider-Centered Postmarket Surveillance Strategy. Food & Drug LJ. 2011; 66: 377.
11. Sorenson C & Drummond M. Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Q. 2014; 92: 114-50.
12. Rome BN, Kramer DB, & Kesselheim AS. Approval of high-risk medical devices in the US: implications for clinical cardiology. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014; 16: 1-9.
13. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, & Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009; 302: 2679-85.
14. Food, Administration D, Health UDo, & Services H. Medical device reporting: Manufacturer reporting, importer reporting, user facility reporting, distributor reporting. Fed. Regist. 2000; 65: 4112-121.
15. Donawa M. Medical device reporting: the US final rule. Med. Device Technol. 1996; 7: 14-16, 18, 20-11.
16. Mezher M. India takes Inspiration from FDA, EMA in bid to improve CDSCO [Internet]. India: Michael Mezher; 2015 [cited 2016 Aug 17]. Available from: /06/29/22795/India-Takes-Inspiration- From-FDA-EMA-to-Improve-CDSCO/aspx
674 Views | 8536 Downloads
How to Cite
Pabbati, S., K. Hira, and A. S. Begum. “MEDICAL DEVICES AND THEIR APPROVAL PROCEDURE IN INDIA”. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs, Vol. 4, no. 3, Feb. 2018, pp. 19-29, doi:10.22270/ijdra.v4i3.186.