Paula Fentiman

The makers of indigestion medicine Gaviscon yesterday denied attempting to maintain a market monopoly, thereby "cheating the NHS" out of millions of pounds, after a series of e-mails were leaked.

Executives at Reckitt Benckiser created obstacles to rival products, the e-mails suggested.

A former employee told BBC Newsnight that Reckitt Benckiser had "cheated the NHS" and could have saved it "millions of pounds".

But the drug firm said yesterday it was a "responsible company" and denied it had enough power to carry out such a scheme.

It has, however, launched an internal investigation into the "inappropriate sentiment" featured in the memos.

The claims centre around what happened after the remedy came off patent nine years ago. It should have paved the way for cheap generic copies to be made, but the documents include details of how the company said it could slow down the process.

Executives at the Hull-based manufacturer boasted that they had influenced regulatory bodies to delay the introduction of a generic product by objecting on a number of grounds including health and safety.

One wrote: "Should we not drag it out as long as possible - £9m of business is at stake."

In other e-mails, executives wrote of their intention to create "a further barrier to competitors" and "restrict entry for new competitors".

In a statement yesterday, Reckitt Benckiser said: "We are shocked by the allegations made in the press today, and by the inappropriate sentiment expressed in some of the internal correspondence of 2003.

"Reckitt Benckiser is a responsible company in the way it conducts its business, and we have therefore instigated an immediate internal investigation, and will take action. However, we do not accept much of what has been alleged, which implies a power or patient access we simply do not possess."

The statement said Gaviscon is a "very small part" of the £350m the NHS spends on drugs to treat illnesses such as heartburn and dyspepsia.

The statement added: "The company has never objected to a monograph driven generic name being published. The timetable of which is not, and never has been, within our control - a monograph/generic name could have been published at any time by the regulators without reference to any third party."

The British Pharmacopoeia Commission said the creation of the particular stomach medicine formulations involved was complex and that the time taken was not down to any interventions or detail in the memos.

The commission "did not allow Reckitt Benckiser to influence its work to elaborate a monograph for alginate raft forming suspensions", it said.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We would be concerned if any manufacturer of branded medicines sought to protect their patent-expired products in the manner alleged.

"We are not aware that Reckitt Benckiser have done so in this case."