News

India Imports 75% of Its Medical Devices — AiMeD's Rajiv Nath Says the Time for Assembly-Led Growth Is Over. This Is What Genuine MedTech Innovation Requires.

By Mustafa Shariff, Editor in Chief · June 11, 2026 · 2 min read

Summary

• India MedTech's Import Problem and the Innovation Roadmap: What AiMeD's Rajiv Nath Says India Must Build. AiMeD Forum Coordinator Rajiv Nath has laid out what genuine Indian MedTech self-reliance requires. Here is the full analysis of India's medical device import challenge and the path forward.

India's medical device market is one of the fastest-growing in Asia — valued at approximately $14 billion in 2025 and projected to reach $50 billion by 2030 at a compound annual growth rate of over 15%. Yet approximately 75% of the medical devices used in Indian hospitals are imported — from MRI machines and CT scanners supplied by GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers, and Philips, to surgical instruments from German and American manufacturers, to diagnostic consumables from Roche, Abbott, and bioMérieux. India, which has built the world's most globally significant generic pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, has not yet replicated that achievement in medical devices.

Rajiv Nath, Forum Coordinator of the Association of Indian Medical Device Industry — India's largest industry body representing domestic medical device manufacturers — has published a detailed assessment of what genuine Indian MedTech self-reliance requires, published in BioSpectrum India on June 1, 2026. The assessment is candid about where India's MedTech sector has reached and what must change for it to close the gap between ambition and execution.

Where India Has and Has Not Made Progress

India has made genuine progress in specific medical device categories. Disposables and consumables — surgical gloves, IV infusion sets, needles, syringes, wound care products — are manufactured domestically at scale and competitive quality. Orthopaedic implants and instruments are increasingly made in India. Diagnostic kits for infectious disease, maternal health, and blood glucose monitoring have domestic manufacturing that serves both Indian and export markets. The government's Maha MedTech Mission and the Production Linked Incentive scheme for medical devices have begun to address the structural incentive gaps that kept domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage relative to well-capitalised importers.

But the high-value end of the medical device market — the complex diagnostic imaging systems, the interventional cardiology devices, the surgical robots, the advanced monitoring systems — remains overwhelmingly import-dependent. These are the categories that generate the most economic value, employ the most highly skilled engineers and scientists, and create the IP that builds long-term technological capability. And in these categories, Indian domestic manufacturing remains marginal.

What Genuine Self-Reliance Requires

Nath's assessment identifies four structural requirements for India to move from assembly and low-complexity manufacturing toward genuine medical device innovation. First, cluster development with product technology focus: rather than generic industrial estates that accommodate any manufacturer, dedicated MedTech clusters should be developed with a clear focus — separate facilities for consumer medical electronics, stainless steel instruments, hospital furniture and electronics, diagnostic systems. This clustering creates supply chain density, specialised talent pools, and knowledge spillovers that assembly parks cannot produce.

Second, component localisation: India currently imports the majority of critical components for medical devices it nominally manufactures domestically — printed circuit boards, precision actuators, advanced sensors, optical elements. Until these components can be sourced domestically, Indian MedTech cannot achieve either cost competitiveness at the high end or supply chain resilience. Component localisation requires investment timelines of 5-10 years that PLI schemes alone cannot support.

Third, R&D and IP creation support: innovation grants, tax incentives for medical device R&D, and mechanisms for overseas technology access and commercialisation create the financial environment in which Indian medical device companies can invest in development rather than just manufacturing. Without these incentives, the rational commercial decision for most Indian companies is to assemble imported components rather than invest in indigenous design and development.

Fourth, hospital procurement policy alignment: Indian hospitals — particularly large private groups and government hospitals — systematically prefer imported medical devices from established global brands. This preference is sometimes justified by performance differences, sometimes by physician training on imported systems, and sometimes by procurement systems that reward brand recognition over clinical evidence. Procurement policies that require clinical evaluation of domestically manufactured alternatives, combined with hospital accreditation standards that recognise Indian device quality, would create the institutional demand that pulls domestic device innovation into clinical use.

The BIOSECURE Act and the Geopolitical Dimension

The BIOSECURE Act's potential restriction of Chinese medical device manufacturers — who supply a significant proportion of India's lower-cost diagnostic equipment and consumables — adds a geopolitical dimension to the domestic manufacturing case that purely economic arguments had not previously provided. If Chinese medical device companies face restrictions in the US and European markets, the same supply chain diversification logic that is driving pharmaceutical CMO qualification toward India could extend to medical devices. India needs to be positioned as the quality alternative — not just in pharmaceuticals but in medical devices — when that demand materialises.

"BHC Perspective"

At Bengaluru Health Community, the AiMeD-Nath MedTech self-reliance agenda is directly relevant to the BHC ecosystem. Bengaluru has emerged as an important centre for medical device innovation — with companies like Forus Health, IIT Madras spinouts, and a growing field of MedTech startups building diagnostics and monitoring devices. What Nath describes — the systemic requirements for Indian MedTech to move from assembly to innovation — is the operating environment in which these startups must succeed or fail.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is India's medical device import situation?
A: India imports approximately 75% of its medical devices despite having a $14 billion domestic market growing to a projected $50 billion by 2030. High-value categories — imaging systems, interventional cardiology devices, surgical robots, advanced monitoring — remain overwhelmingly import-dependent.

Q: What does AiMeD's Rajiv Nath say India needs?
A: Cluster development with product technology focus, critical component localisation, R&D and IP creation support through innovation grants and tax incentives, and hospital procurement policies that require clinical evaluation of domestically manufactured alternatives.

Q: How does the BIOSECURE Act affect Indian MedTech?
A: Potential restrictions on Chinese medical device manufacturers could extend the supply chain diversification logic — which is already driving pharma CMO qualification toward India — into medical devices. India needs to be positioned as the quality alternative to Chinese medical device suppliers in global markets.