Search This Site

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Implications of Speciality Seniority - Read Carefully

Serious promotion anomalies in new G.O-- panel senioroty in specialty would prevail over CML seniority. Rural service is ignored

கிராமப்புறத்தில் பணிபுரியும் மருத்துவர்களை பாதிக்கும் விதியை உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும்

இதுவரை அமலில் இருந்த விதிமுறை : ஒரு மருத்துவர் முதலில் அரசு பணியில் சேரும் போது கிராமப்புற ஆரம்ப சுகாதார நிலையத்தில் சேர்ந்தாலும், அல்லது அரசு மருத்துவமனையில் மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் சேர்ந்தாலும், ஒரே பணி மூப்பு - CML (Civil Medical List) based on TNPSC Seniorty - என்ற விதி இது வரை நடைமுறையில் உள்ளது.

அதாவது அவர்கள் கிராமப்புற மருத்துவமனைகளில் பணிபுரியும் காலகட்டம் அவர்களது பதவி உயர்விற்கு (TNPSC Seniorty) எடுத்துக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது

தற்சமயம் அரசாணை 354 நாள் 23.10.2009ன் படி இந்த விதி மாற்றப்பட்டுள்ளது (பார்க்க படங்கள் 25 - 26 Illustration 4)
எனவே மருத்துவர்கள் ஆரம்ப சுகாதார நிலையங்களில் பணிபுரியும் காலகட்டமும், அவர்கள் பணியில் சேரும் போது உள்ள CML சீனியாரிட்டிக்கும் மதிப்பிலை என்று ஆகிறது now the time spend by a medical officer in PHC is totally wasted

அவர்கள் மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் உதவிப்பேராசிரியராக பணியில் சேரும் நாள் மட்டுமே அவர் பேராசிரியராவதற்கு தகுதி என்றாகிறது

கிராமங்களில் 3 முதல் 4 வருடம் பணிபுரிந்து அதன் பிறகு பட்ட மேற்படிப்பு படிக்கும் மருத்துவரை விட கிராமப்புறங்களில் ஒரு நாள் கூட பணிபுரியாதவர் சீனியாரகும் அவல நிலையை இந்த ஆணை உருவாக்குகிறது

இந்த விதி உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்யப்பட வேண்டும்.

உதாரணமாக 2006 வரை கிராமப்புறங்களில் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் (ஒப்பந்த அடிப்படையில் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் உட்பட) இது வரை யாரும் படித்து முடிக்க வில்லை. இவர்கள் அனைவரும் படித்து முடித்து மருத்துவக்கல்லூரிகளில் சேர்வது 2013க்கு பிறகு தான்ஆனால் 2007 முதல் 2013 வரை படிக்கும் non service pg மருத்துவர்கள் இவர்களை விட சீனியாரும் வகையில் இந்த ஆணையில் விதி உள்ளது. இது கிராமப்புறங்களில் பணிபுரியும் மருத்துவர்களை பாதிக்கிறது.

இந்த புதிய விதியினால் இனி வரும் காலங்களில் கிராமப்புறங்களில் பணிபுரிய மருத்துவர்கள் விரும்பாமல் நேரடியாக மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் சேரவே விரும்புவார்கள்.

பல வருடங்களுக்கு முன்னர் இருந்தது போன்ற நிலை ஏற்பட வாய்ப்பு உள்ளது

எனவே இந்த புதிய விதியை உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்து, தகுதி இருப்பின், அனைத்து பதவி உயர்வுகளும், CML மூப்பு அடிப்படையிலேயே வழங்கப்பட்ட வேண்டும் என்றும் அனைத்து seniority panelகளும் CML சீனியாரிட்டியின் அடிப்படையிலேயே இருக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் மாற்றப்பட வேண்டும்

--


ILLUSTRATION 1
DOCTOR
A
B
DATE OF APPOINTMENT
1/4/2003
1/4/2009
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT
MBBS
M.D
COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE DONE BEFORE DOING P.G
4 YEARS
NIL
DATE OF QUALIFIED P.G COURSE
1/4/2010
1/4/2009
TOTAL SERVICE AS ON 1/10/2010
7 YEARS
1 YEAR
PROMOTION TO SAP AS PER MCI
2015
TOTAL SERVICE 12 YEARS
2014
TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
PROMOTION TO ASS-P AS PER MCI
2019
TOTAL SERVICE 16 YEARS
2018
TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROMOTION TO PROF AS PER MCI PAY BAND 4
2021
TOTAL SERVICE 18 YEARS
2020
TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS
ILLUSTRATION 1
1. THE JUNIOR DOCTOR B WHO HAD NOT SERVED IN RURAL AREAS PHC/GH EVEN FOR A SINGLE DAY AND ALSO JUNIOR TO DOCTOR A BY 7 YEARS GETS ALL PROMOTIONS BEFORE DOCTOR A AND HE IS ALWAYS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR.
2. DOCTOR B ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY TO DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION AS DOCTOR A COMES TO DME SIDE LATER.
3. DOCTOR A PAYS THE PRICE FOR UNDERGOING COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE BEFORE ENTERING P.G AND THUS HIS SERVICES ARE NOT COUNTED FOR PROMOTION.
4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 18 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 7 TEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF


ILLUSTRATION II
DOCTOR
A
B
APPOINTMENT
1/1/2001
1/10/2008
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT
M.D
M.D
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT
PHC/GH
NO
TOTAL SERVICE IN NON DME SIDE RURAL AREA
8 YEARS UP TO 2009
NIL
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME
2009 TOTAL SERVICE 8 YEARS
2008 TOTAL SERVICE NIL
SENIOR ASSIST PROFESSOR
2014 TOTAL SERVICE 13 YEARS
2013 TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
2018 TOTAL SERVICE 17 YEARS
2017 TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4
2020 TOTAL SERVICE 19 YEARS
2019 TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS
ILLUSTRATION 2
1. DOCTOR A AND B ARE QUALIFIED M.D SPECIALISTS ON THEIR DATE OF APPOINTMENT ITSELF
2. DOCTOR A SERVED IN RURAL AREAS PHC/DMS FOR 7 YEARS BEFORE COMING TO DME SIDE
3. IN DME SIDE THOUGH DOCTOR B IS JUNIOR BY 7 YEARS TO DOCTOR A, HE IS PROMOTED BEFORE DOCTOR A AND IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR FOR THE REST OF SERVICE. DOCTOR B ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY TO DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION.
4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 19 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 8 YEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF.


ILLUSTRATION III
DOCTOR
A
B
APPOINTMENT
1/1/2001
1/10/2008
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT
M.D
M.D
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT
DME
DME
TOTAL SERVICE IN DME SIDE NOT SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G. QUALIFICATION
8 YEARS UP TO 2009
NIL
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G QUALIFICATION
2009 TOTAL SERVICE 8 YEARS
2008 TOTAL SERVICE NIL
SR ASSIST PROFESSOR
2014 TOTAL SERVICE 13 YEARS
2013 TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
ASS PROFESSOR
2018 TOTAL SERVICE 17 YEARS
2017 TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4
2020 TOTAL SERVICE 19 YEARS
2019 TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS
ILLUSTRATION 3
1. DOCTOR A AND B ARE QUALIFIED M.D SPECIALISTS ON THEIR DATE OF APPOINTMENT ITSELF IN DME SIDE.
2. DOCTOR A SERVED IN A DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN HIS SPECIALTY FOR 7 YEARS BEFORE COMING TO HIS SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT
3. IN SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT THOUGH DOCTOR A AND B HAVE SAME PERIOD OF TOTAL SERVICE, DOCTOR B IS PROMOTED BEFORE DOCTOR A AND IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR FOR THE REST OF SERVICE. HE ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY IN HIS OWN SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT IN DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A THOUGH EQUALLY QUALIFIED, BUT IN OTHER DEPARTMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION.
4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 19 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 8 YEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF



ILLUSTRATION IV



ILLUSTRATION IV


DOCTOR
A
B
APPOINTMENT
1/10/1997
1/10/1997
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT
MBBS
MBBS
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT
DPH
DPH
P.G. QUALIFICATION ( after seving mandatory 2 yrs)
2003
2003
POSTING AFTER COMPLETING PG
PHC
DME
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G QUALIFICATION
2008
2003
SR ASSIST  PROFESSOR
2013
2008
ASS PROFESSOR
2017
2012
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4
2019
2014


ILLUSTRATION 4
1.      DOCTOR A AND B ARE JOIN IN PHC WITH COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE OF 2 YEARS BEFORE JOINING PG.
2.     BOTH JOIN PG IN THE SAME YEAR
3.     DOCTOR A IS POSTED IN A PHC AFTER PG WHEREAS DOCTOR-B IS POSTED IN DME SIDE IN THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT.
4.      DOCTOR A JOINS DME SIDE 5 YEARS AFTER DOCTOR B
5. DOCTOR B GETS PAY BAND 4 FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO DOCTOR A, EVENTHOUGH BOTH THE DOCTORS HAVE JOINED SERVICE, COMPLETED POST-GRADUATION SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Friday, September 17, 2010

CET for Medical Admission WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 380 OF 2009

1

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.3 SECTION X


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 380 OF 2009


SIMRAN JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for directions, impleadment/directions)
WITH W.P(C) NO. 238 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)
W.P(C) NO. 417 of 2009
(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)

Date: 13/08/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing
today.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE



For Petitioner(s) Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra,ASG
Mr. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. Anand Verma,Adv.

Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv

(For State of M.P.) Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. M.P. Singh,Adv.

Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.

(State of Chhattisgarh)Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha ,Adv

(For respt. 9 & 10) Mr. Alok Sangwan,Adv.
2

Mr. Devashish Bharuka,Adv.

(For respt. 13 & 14) Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan,Adv.

Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Learned Additional Solicitor General for
respondent-Union of India submits that the
Central Government has approved the proposal of
the MCI for amendment of the regulations
relating to courses of graduate and post
graduate students by providing a single
eligibilty-cum-entrance Examination and seeks
three weeks' time to notify it and place it on
record.


Finally, list after three weeks.




(O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi)
Court Master Court Master

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Notification of Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani Tibb Registered Medical Practitioners as persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine

ABSTRACT
Indian System of Medicine – Notification of Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani Tibb
Registered Medical Practitioners as persons practicing the modern scientific system of
medicine under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Orders – Issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (IM 2 -2) DEPARTMENT
G.O. (Ms) No. 248 Dated : 08.09.2010
Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2041
Aavani 23
ORDER :
The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazettee .
NOTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the rights of practitioners of Indian System of Medicine are
protected under section 17(3) (b) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
(Central Act 48 of 1970) ;
AND WHEREAS, as per section 2 (1) (e) of the said Act, “Indian Medicine“
means the system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha
or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances, as the Central
Council of Indian Medicine may declare by notification from time to time ;
AND WHEREAS , the Central Council of Indian Medicine in its Notification
F.No.28-5/2004-AY.(MM), dated the 19th May 2004, has clarified that the word “Modern
Advances” in clause (e) of section 2 (1) of the said Act as advances made in the
various branches of modern scientific medicine in all its branches of internal
medicine , surgery, gynaecology and obstetrics , anesthesiology, diagnostic procedures
and other technological innovation made from time to time and declare that the courses
and curriculum conducted and recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicine are
supplemented with such modern advances ;
AND WHEREAS , the Central Council of Indian Medicine has improved and
strengthened the syllabus of Indian Medicine by including subjects with regard to
National Programmes like National Malaria Eradication programmes, Tuberculosis,
Leprosy, Family Welfare Programme, Reproductive and Child Health Programme,
Immunisation Programme, AIDS, Cancer etc ;
-2-
Now, THEREFORE, under sub - clause (iii) of clause (ee) of rule 2 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares every
registered medical practitioner holding the qualifications specified in the second, third
or fourth Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act
48 of 1970) and Part III of the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine
(Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act , 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1997)
and registered in the Medical Register of the State maintained under the aforesaid
Acts, as a person practicing the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act 23 of 1940.)
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
V.K.SUBBURAJ
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of
Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.
The Works Manager,
Government General Press,
Chennai.- 2 (for publication of Notification in the Government Gazette)
The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council,
Arumbakkkam, Chennai – 106.
The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine,
Arumbakkkam, Chennai – 106.
The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 4,
SF/SC
// Forwarded / By Order //
SECTION OFFICER

“Information prior to 2005 cannot be denied”

From
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/14/stories/2010091462360600.htm

Staff Reporter

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has rejected the argument that public authorities dealing with applications under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 were not liable to provide details related to the period before the enactment of the legislation.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a government-aided arts and science college in Tuticorin against an order passed by the State Information Commission, Justice R.S. Ramanathan said that the college could not refuse to part with details sought by an individual about its activities since 1999.

The judge disagreed with the petitioner's contention that compelling an authority to part with information prior to 2005 would amount to giving retrospective effect to the Act. He said that it was a substantial legislation which recognises the right of every person to obtain information.

“The purpose of enacting the legislation itself would become meaningless if the Court accepts the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no information or documents earlier to 2005 can be asked for by an RTI applicant… A citizen is entitled to call for information related to any period,” the judge said.

He also rejected the petitioner's other argument that the State Information Commission had violated the principles of natural justice by not giving an opportunity to the college explain its stand before directing the institution to provide information sought by the RTI applicant.

The Act does not require the Commission to issue notice before ordering disclosure of information.

“Further the question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise only when a person is affected by the passing of an order or any civil consequences followed by that order,” the judge added.

He also held that the petitioner college, being a government aided institution, was liable to provide the information as directed by the Information Commission.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 189 OF 2010

N WP(C) o.189/2010
1

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.3 SECTION X


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 189 OF 2010


NAVAL ASIJA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay)

Date: 13/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikram Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv.


For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, SG
Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
Mr. D.S Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Adv.

UT Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.

State of Jharkhand Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.

State of W.B. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.

For MCI Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.
Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv.

State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
WP(C) No.189/2010
2


State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.

State of U.P. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.

Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.

State of T.N. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv

State of M.P. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel for the MCI and counsel for some of the

States. We have also heard the learned Solicitor General

appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

We are informed that several States (as many as

14) have not completed the first round of counselling.

We are also informed the second round of counselling for

the All India quota, comes to an end today. After

hearing learned counsel and having examined the facts and

having considered the similar order passed during the

previous years, we issue the following interim directions

in regard to the schedule for extended second round of

Post Graduate Counselling 2010 for All India quota:
WP(C) No.189/2010
3


Date Detail
20.5.2010 Time-scheduled to be hosted on the website
by Directorate General of Health Services
27.5.2010 All States must report updated number of
vacancies resulting from non-joining,
resigning and surrendering of seats in 'All
India Quota' to the Directorate General of
Health Services by 5 PM
1.6.2010 Total number of vacancies to be notified by
Directorate General of Health Services
From 2.6.2010 Extended 2nd round of Counselling to be
to 12.6.2010 conducted by Directorate General of Health
Services at Delhi Counselling Venue only
20.6.2010 The last date for the students to join
allotted College.
21.6.2010 Vacant 'All India Quota' seats may be
deemed to be surrendered to the States
30.6.2010 Final deadline for the students to join
allotted course



We direct that the unfilled seats of All India

quota which would be deemed to have lapsed in favour of

the State Governments as at the end of the second

counselling today, will not so lapse in favour of the

State Government in view of the extended second round of

counselling. To ensure that the entire extended second

counselling is completed within the time schedule, the

extended second counselling for the All India quota shall

be held at Delhi. The State Governments shall adhere to

the above time schedule particularly to the second item

in regard to reporting of vacancies.
WP(C) No.189/2010
4
WP(C) No.189/2010
5

Liberty is reserved to the respondents 1 and 2 to

file an application for introduction of a single window

Scheme for the Post Graduate courses.

( Ravi P. Verma ) ( M.S. Negi )
Court Master Court Master

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Attacking Docs Non-bailable Offense in Maharashtra

The Maharashtra assembly has passed the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 on Friday.

Under the provisions of the act, any attack on doctors or medicare service personnel would result in a fine of Rs 50,000 and a three-year jail term. Minister of State for Law and Justice Bhaskar Jadhav tabled the bill, which states, "Any offender, who commits or attempts to commit or abets or incites the commission of any act of violence....shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended to three years and with fine, which may extend to Rs.50,000."

It is a non-bailable offense and any attacker will have to pay twice the damages for any loss caused by the said attack.

The Indian Medical Association and several other doctors' associations had demanded such a law after attacks on doctors last year.


Source-Medindia
RAS

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Medical sector reforms on the cards - Health Minister

http://www.indiaedunews.net/Medical/Medical_sector_reforms_on_the_cards_-_Health_Minister_10009/

December 25, 2009

Jammu: The Union Health Ministry has come up with a wave of changes for the Medical sector to encourage the participation of private players in the field.

The ministry, in order to cope up with the shortage of doctors in the rural areas has decided to create another cadre of medicos who will be assigned duties exclusively in the villages and rural areas.

Besides announcing the incentives, the ministry has also amended an Act of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to facilitate opening of medical colleges and institutes in the rural areas of the country.

The Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, while addressing a function after laying the foundation stone of a hospital here recently announced that his ministry has decided to introduce a four-year course for doctors to create another cadre of medicos.

"The proposed new cadre would although be below the MBBS degree but it will be recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI). It is a three-year academic course and a year's house job. The syllabus has already been drafted by the MCI and has been dispatched to different states for approval," he added.

The final decision now resides with the state governments who have to recognize the course.

Expecting a revolutionary change in the health sector, Azad said that, "It is mandatory for all doctors, trained in the four-year course, to serve only in the rural areas. Urban areas are not their field of work once they are a part of this programme."

He further added that apart from this new cadre, MBBS doctors would also be deployed in the rural areas.

To rope in private players in the health sector, Azad said that the pressure on the government institutes would ease due to the opening of private hospitals.

The Health Ministry had amended the existing Act of the MCI to simplify the procedure of opening medical colleges in the underdeveloped and backward areas

"Zones are allocated by the Health and Medical Education Ministry divided into three parts and special attention will be given to those areas which lack basic health facilities. Various concessions have been already announced by the ministry," he said.

With new concessions every year, 4000 specialist doctors and a similar number of super-specialist doctors would pass out from different medical colleges.

Azad further informed that his ministry had given sanction to open 19 medical institutes on a par with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and 250 nursing colleges all over the country to cope up with the doctors and paramedical staff crunch.

"On an average, 20,000 candidates would pass out as qualified nurses every year from these colleges", he hoped.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Union Health Minister says steps are being taken to improve standard of medical education

http://pibmumbai.gov.in/scripts/detail.asp?releaseId=E2009PR1431

Delhi , December 11,2009 16:46 IST
Lok Sabha

To improve the quality of medical education, focus has been given to upgrading the skills of medical teachers, increase in post graduate courses/seats, revision of curriculum, introduction of new medical courses and revision of the norms of infrastructure etc. While these amendments have taken effect, the actual implementation is expected to commence from the next academic session. Some of the important amendments made in the MCI Regulations are as under:-

i) The ratio of post graduate medical teacher to the student has been relaxed from 1:1 to 1:2.

ii) Research publications in indexed/National Journals have been made compulsory for promotion to the post of Professor/Associate Professor.

iii) Permitted colleges which are not yet fully recognized are allowed to offer postgraduate courses in the subjects of preclinical and paraclincial Departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Microbiology, forensic Medicine & Community Medicine without waiting for full recognition.

iv) The teaching experience required for the post of Professor/Associate Professor has been reduced by one year in the respective feeder cadres.

v) Emergency Medicine has been incorporated in the medical curriculum so that the medical students are trained to tackle medical emergencies.

vi) Basic management skills in the area of human resources, materials and resource management related to health care delivery, General and hospital management, principal inventory skills and counseling have been included in the curriculum.

vii) A village attachment of atleast one week to understand issues of community health alongwith exposure to village health centres, ASHA, Sub Centres have also been included in the curriculum.

viii) The requirement of infrastructure like institution block, library, auditorium, examination hall, lecture theatres, etc. has been rationalized for optimal use, and

ix) Laboratories in different departments have been pooled to have common laboratories which can be used by all the departments for better utilization of the equipment and space and to reduce capital expenditure,

2. In addition, to facilitate expansion of medical education to the unserved and underserved areas of the country, amendments have been made in the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations, some of which are as follows:-

(a) For opening of new medical colleges, land requirements have been rationalized across the country and they have been further liberalized in the case of notified tribal areas, underserved/unserved areas and hill areas. In respect of these areas, land need not be unitary piece but can be in two pieces of land,

(b) In respect of North-East and Hill States, the requirement of bed strength in the teaching hospital has been liberalized, and

(c) Staff and infrastructural requirements have also been rationalized etc.

3. The President of India in her address to the Joint Session of Parliament on 4th June, 2009, announced the Government’s intention to set up a National Council of Human Resources in Health (NCHRH) as an overarching regulatory body for health sector to reform the current framework and enhance supply of skilled personnel. Consequently, a Task Force under the Chairmanship of Union Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) was constituted to deliberate upon the issue of setting up of the proposed National Council. The Task Force submitted its report on 31st July, 2009. The report alongwith the draft bill for creation of NCHRH has been sent to the State Governments seeking their views and posted on the Ministry’s website for inviting comments from the general public. It is envisaged that the proposed National Council, when constituted, will deal with various needs of medical education in the country.

This information was given by Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad Minister Union Minister for Health & Family Welfare in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Rural Health Regulatory Authority Bill 2009

The West Bengal government on Dec 2009 passed the controversial Rural Health Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 in the state assembly by majority vote.
In doing so, the state government created a precedence in the sense that it over-ruled thereby the collective decision that was taken by the Left Front to send the bill to the assembly select committee in view of the differences that existed over various tenets of the bill among the Opposition.
The government’s move resulted in an immediate walkout by the Trinamool Congress and Congress. The Bill introduces a 3-year diploma course on medical science and the apparent objective is to deploy these diploma holders in various parts of rural Bengal to meet the acute shortage there in terms of qualified medical practitioners.

The government’s move, good or bad, will undoubtedly lead to tremendous opposition from the leading Opposition parties as well as Left Front allies at this juncture when the state is going through one election after another and practically losing them all.

In early 1980s, the then CPIM state secretary Promode Dasgupta had mooted the idea of creating "barefoot doctors" to deploy them in rural Bengal, but had to relent to the huge opposition from the medical fraternity, including the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
At the same time, it is not unknown either that during the raj days, a category of medical practitioners was created who were known as Licentiate Medical Practitioners. Sometimes jokingly referred to as "half-doctors", these practitioners did not go through the rigours of the Bachelor of Medicine (MB) course, but could practice privately under certain conditions.
The system was abolished in 1946. "I don’t understand why Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is trying to follow the Promode Dasgupta formula which was rejected by the medical fraternity as well," said Partha Chatterjee, the opposition leader in the state Assembly. Congress leader Manas Bhunia, who is himself an MBBS doctor resented the fact that two categories of medical practioners were being created, the fully-qualified for the cities and the half-qualified for rural Bengal.
"The sole intention of the government behind framing the bill is to tide over the manpower crisis in the rural health care system. MBBS doctors often refuse to go to the villages and stay there. We want to send these diploma-holder to villages to treat people there," state health minister Surjya Kanta Mishra argued. Mishra told newsmen he was unaware of the Front’s earlier decision, although he is a central committee member of the CPIM. Left partners were aghast.
Ashok Ghosh of the Forward Bloc, CPI’s Manju Majumdar and RSP’s Manoj Bhattacharjee all said they couldn’t figure out how this faux pas had happened. All of them were hugely surprised at the passing of the bill and said they would talk to the Left Front chairman Biman Bose. The CPIM’s state secretariat will take up the issue at a meeting on Thursday.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

IMA doctors against Clinical Establishment Bill

Members of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) today voiced their opposition to the proposed Clinical Establishment Bill at the General House meeting held at IMA House in Ludhiana on Sunday. The Bill has been approved by the Union Cabinet and is to be presented in the Parliament for debate and approval. After detailed deliberations, the members rejected the Bill outright as it “violated the dignity of the profession”. IMA president Dr Narotam Diwan said: “The National Council, which is proposed to be the governing body, will be composed of quasi-literate persons drawn from Unani, Siddha, Nursing and Paramedical sections of the profession. Of the total 18 members of the National Council, only two will be medical graduates. If passed, this Bill will open the doors for every unqualified person to get registered in the guise of Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Nursing and Pharmacy branches.”

Monday, March 15, 2010

It’s official, Dr Cancer - Vaidya Ramesh Laxman Dhokte - is declared a quack

We have already covered this news at
http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/10/fraud-ayurveda-doctor-to-be-arrested.html
http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/06/quack-ayurveda-doctor-in-thane.html
Based on Indian Express From http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=32306

Dr.Dhokte has mailed us asking to remove the pages
His Mail

Hello,
This is in regard following webpage on your website.
http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/10/fraud-ayurveda-doctor-to-be-arrested.html
This is wrong informtation and I herewith ask to remove this html webpage from your website.
Let me know if any issues in removal or you expect any help form my side and how soon you could do the necessary.
Regards

Our Reply

Dear Sir,

The information is based on http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154386
From INDIAN EXPRESS, which is a reputed News Paper
Please inform us as to what part of the news is wrong
Regards
Bruno

His Next Mail

Hello,
we are talking to newpaper sources on further findings on sources of  this information.
The data findings and allegations are baseless.
Its upto you if you want to remove this html page or not. but this is a heads-up on legal consequences that may incur and since your website is under your proprietorship unlike newpapers, can have implications for reputation damage on internet.
Hence, this is my friendly request to remove the contents and let me know if you expect any assistance to do so.
please confirm your take on this, either way.
Thanks,
Ramesh Dhokte

His third Mail

your profile and website is impressive. thanks for sharing.
your intentions of doctorsandlaw.com may be right, but just feeding some news that appears to be somewhat relevant( to what that website intents to present), isn't in your interest for your propsperous career and reputation as a doctor,  unless you have solid proofs for the facts behind it before flooding such news around.
You would need to be investigator or a lawyer yourself to do so (my friendly advice).
you seem to have been lacking any news data that can be posted on your website to generate traffic.
News paper represents version of truth that they are presented and thus have many loopholes in the law can easily bend the facts for the taste of audience but yours is proprietory website and thus my advice is
Remove the contents or any link for that matter from your website related to these allegations for/on Vaidya Ramesh Dhokte.
Feel free to email only if you have taken the corrective action i.e. no contents, meaning neither in the format of a copy-paste from a news-paper article nor a link to the news itself.
Regards,


Mumbai, June 9, 2004 : Council scraps registration of Dombivli Ayurveda practitioner for duping cancer patients.

Ramesh Laxman Dhokte (65) of Dombivli, who has been duping cancer patients with the promise of a cure for more than 25 years, has lost his licence to practise medicine. The Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine (MCIM) has permenantly withdrawn Dhokte’s licence to practise medicine.

Dhokte holds a diploma in Ayurveda. He had the requisite recognition to practice in Maharashtra

It was his unverified and dubious claim of curing cancer that was challenged by the MCIM in 1994.
The case against him gained momentum after Dhokte was booked for violating the Medical Practioners Act, 1961, and for duping cancer patients by the Economic Offences Wing of the Thane police on December 5, 2004.

Over the past quarter century, Dhokte sold his ‘‘miracle cure’’ to lakhs of unsuspecting cancer patients with the promise that his concoction would cure them of the dreaded disease.

By doing so, he raked it in. But Dhokte failed to get his medicine authenticated by an authorised research institution, despite reminders from the MCIM.

Dhokte claimed that he had stumbled upon a herb called ranvila in the forests of Mahableshwar.

According to him, the tribals had actually treated cancer with the herb.

Dhokte then proclaimed that the extract which he had prepared from the herb could cure all kinds of cancer.

Pune-based Botanical Survey of India had denied the very existence of the ranvila plant while replying to a query by one Dr Vilas Tannu in 1994.

The Thane police report on which the MCIM based its decision, revealed that Dhokte himself did not manufacture any medicine.

He bulk-purchased health tonics (like Radona from Solumix Herboceuticals) of well-known brands. After re-packaging, his ‘‘miracle cancer cure’’ was ready.

The police also found that Dhokte did not have a licence to sell medicine. Even the licence number on the label of his cancer cure product was fake.

Attempts to contact Dhokte failed. The staff at the dispensary told Newsline that he was away and ‘‘would be available’’ next week.

The Quack Effect

Dhokte, a diploma holder in Ayurveda from Dombivli, has been peddling his miracle cure since 1982. He has written numerous books, scripted a TV serial and a film on his miraculous cancer cure. Dhokte operated from a clinic at Dombivli (East) and charged Rs 2,000 for medicine and Rs 500 for consulting. His daily earnings amounted to Rs 40,000-Rs 50,000 on an average.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

CET for medical PG: Decide in a month HC tells govt

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/CET-for-medical-PG-Decide-in-a-month-HC-tells-govt/articleshow/5332130.cms

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has given a month's time to the state government to take a decision in the matter concerning holding a common entrance test (CET) for state quota in all institutions offering postgraduate medical degree courses from the next academic year.

Acting on second public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Parents Association for Medical, Dental and Paramedical, a division bench comprising Justice MS Shah and Justice AS Dave has asked the state government to act fast. The bench asked the government to decide in one month if it would hold a CET for admission to all state colleges' PG medical courses.

In addition, this time the high court has, in specific words, warned the government that it would face contempt proceedings in the case if it fails to reach a conclusion this time.

"State government will take final decision in the matter within one month, failing which, it will expose itself to
all the consequences for disobedience of the order of this court," the division bench wrote, after mentioning its five-month-old order, in which the court had given three-month period to the government to take decision on the same issue.

Last year, the state government made a resolution that admission to PG courses would be regulated by a common entrance test and there would be a single window system. However, the government and the universities did not implement this system, and a parents' association filed a PIL demanding that such institutes should not hold separate entrance test. In reply to this PIL, the state government in June this year told the court that a report of a committee headed by Kanubhai Kalsaria in this regard was under consideration of the government.

The court had then asked the government to take decision on whether CET should be held within three months or not.

But when the government could not come to any conclusion, the parents association filed another PIL reiterating their earlier demands.

TNN, Dec 13, 2009, 03.13am IST

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Centre's decision for quota in medical PG not binding on states, says SC

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Centres-decision-for-quota-in-medical-PG-not-binding-on-states-says-SC/articleshow/5293122.cms

NEW DELHI: In a ruling having a major ramification for medical education, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Centre's decision to provide quota for SCs and STs in post-graduate medical courses did not automatically bind the state governments to follow suit and implement it in their medical colleges.

It took note of the fact that the Centre has provided for reservation to SC and ST candidates in the All India Entrance Examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS courses and also in the All-India quota PG seats, but firmly handed down the ruling that "the same cannot automatically be applied in other sections where state governments have power to regulate."

Moreover, the Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal appeared disinclined to grant a direction to the states to follow the example set by the central government. It upheld the Haryana government's decision not to provide quota for SC/ST in PG medical courses.

"In our view, every state can take its own decision with regard to reservation depending on various factors," said Justice Sathasivam writing the judgment for the Bench.

It said: "Article 15(4) is an enabling provision and the state government is the best judge to grant reservation for SC/ST/Backward Class categories at PG level in admissions and the decision of the state of Haryana not to make any provision for reservation at the PG level suffers no infirmity."

It accepted the Bhupinder Hooda government's explanation that reservation in under-graduate medical courses is being provided strictly as per their policy but the PG level education in medical education was governed by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
It noted that "even the MCI has not followed strict adherence to the rule of reservation in admisions for SC/ST category at the post-graduate level."

"In such circumstances, the court cannot issue mandamus (to the state) against their decision and their prospectus also cannot be faulted for not providing reservation in PG courses," the Bench said dismissing appeals filed by one DR Gulshan Prakash faulting the Haryana government's decision not to provide reservation in PG-level medical courses in Maharshi Dayanand University.

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Cabinet clears bill to check medical malpractices

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_cabinet-clears-bill-to-check-medical-malpractices_1340545

In a move that may help in improving medical services, checking malpractices and sub-standard services to patients, the government has decided make registration of all private, public medical facilities and diagnostic laboratories operating in the country compulsory.


The cabinet on Thursday cleared the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Bill that aims at bringing all clinical establishments under a single regulatory framework.

The bill is expected to be tabled in the budget session of parliament. It envisages registering and regulating all hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and labs run by government, trusts (public or private), corporations (including a cooperative society), local authorities or a single doctor.

This means, all clinical establishments would now have to maintain a certain minimum quality standard set down by the National Council for Standards. They would be subject to government scrutiny and rated for their quality, facilities and services. Establishments providing unsatisfactory healthcare can lose licence to operate.

Conditions of registration include having minimum standard of facilities, minimum qualification of health personnel and providing evidence of compliance of the prescribed standards. These establishments will also be open for inspection by authorities. Penalty for non-registration will be an offence punishable with fine up to Rs5 lakh.

A clinical establishment will include hospitals, maternity homes, nursing homes, dispensaries, clinics, etc, and similar facilities with beds that offer diagnosis, treatment or care for illness, injury or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicine (allopathy, yoga, naturopathy, ayurveda, homeopathy, siddha and unani).
It also includes any laboratory (either established as independent entity or part of an establishment), which offers pathological, bacteriological, genetic, radiological, chemical, biological and other diagnostic or investigative services.

With the proposed law, the government expects to crack down on private diagnostic laboratories, especially those engaged in illegal sex determination tests and fraudulent medical practices.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Medical council move draws mixed response

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Pune/Medical-council-move-draws-mixed-response/articleshow/4949568.cms

PUNE: The Union health ministry's decision to form a single council for medical education in the country has drawn a mixed response from the medical fraternity. Some felt that the Medical Council of India (MCI) was doing a fair job, while others said the Union ministry's decision should not be politically motivated.

Welcoming the decision, B J medical college dean Arun Jamkar said, "It will help in running medical education uniformly as all branches will be controlled by one body. The problem at present is that there's tremendous crunch for support staff. I believe that with a single council being formed, equal attention will be given to various courses".

"But I also feel that there should be absolutely no politics involved in the decision. Besides, the MCI should be given some role to play in the council. I do not agree scrapping of the MCI totally," he added.

Bharati Vidyapeeth medical college principal V A Saoji said, "It is premature to judge the decision. However, the council will have limited members and if these members are supposed to take decisions regarding all branches of medical education, then it is not fair as they will not have expertise in all fields. Moreover, there's no need to scrap the MCI as it is doing a reasonable job." Saoji, too, felt that the proposed council should not have a political hand in it. "If that happens, then I don't think things will get any better. Some sections in society are not happy with the functioning of the MCI, but there is no guarantee that the new council will be better."

According to the principal of D Y Patil Pratishthan's medical college, Pimpri, Amarjeet Singh, "It is an unimaginable task for one council to govern six to seven medical branches across the country. Take the example of the dental regulatory body, which is unable to control just the dental education. I fail to understand why a single council is being formed in such a scenario."

Maharashtra institute of medical education and research principal Shubhada Javadekar said, "At present, there is monopoly of the MCI anyway. It's partial to certain colleges and does not impose rules and regulations uniformly. I only feel that the new entity should not favour a particular state or college and should be transparent in its working."

A task force of the Union health ministry has decided to scrap all regulatory bodies, including the MCI, Dental Council of India, Pharmacy Council and the Nursing Council. There will instead be a single regulatory body the National Council for Human Resources in Health which will oversee the seven departments related to medicine. The move now awaits a formal government notification.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Law to prevent govt doctors from taking company favours soon

November 30, 2009, 1:04 IST

The Centre today said it would soon frame a law to prevent government doctors from receiving gifts and cash from pharmaceutical companies.

“Doctors take favours from pharma companies either in the form of cash or in kind and in return give unnecessary favour to them...They prescribe costly medicines of that company...To stop this, the Centre has decided to formulate a law and implement it soon,” Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Gulam Nabi Azad said at a Nationalistic Doctor’s Forum programme.

Azad said the Centre would set up an AIIMS-like institute in West Bengal soon and the state government has already agreed to allot 100-acre land for the purpose.

The Union government has sanctioned Rs 890 crore for the 960-bed hospital with super-speciality facility, he said.

A central fund of Rs 140 crore has also been sanctioned for upgrading Calcutta Medical College and Hospital.

He said the Centre has also decided to go in for a private-public partnership to accelerate and improve the healthcare system of the country.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

‘Deviation from normal practice not medical negligence’

http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/11/stories/2010021161020100.htm

J. Venkatesan
New Delhi: As long as doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence they cannot be held guilty of negligence, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday. Laying down a set of principles, a Bench said, “Mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence.”

The Bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice H. S. Bedi said: “A doctor faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Bhandari said that in complicated cases doctors had to take a chance even if the rate of survival was low. To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent.

The Bench said: “A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment, there is scope for a genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of the other professional doctor.

“The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves a higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient than a procedure involving a lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional, looking at the gravity of illness, has taken a higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which [however] did not yield the desired result, [it] may not amount to negligence.”

Further, “Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him is acceptable to the medical profession. It is the bounden duty and obligation of civil society to ensure that medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear.”

“The aforementioned principles must be kept in view while deciding cases of medical negligence. We should not be understood to have held that doctors can never be prosecuted for medical negligence. As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of negligence,” said the Court.

In the instant case, Kusum Sharma and others challenged a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order rejecting their plea for a compensation of Rs. 45 lakh from the Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre in the Capital for the death of her husband R.K. Sharma after a surgery. It was alleged that Sharma died of medical negligence. The Bench said, “The Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint of the appellants. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.”

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Medical records not under RTI: court

The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that income tax returns and medical records do not fall under the purview of Right To Information (RTI) Act "unless public interest is attached" holding in its landmark judgment that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) came under the ambit of the transparency law.

Quoting an American writer that "one man's freedom of information is another man's invasion of privacy", a full bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjit Sen said: "Personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the act."

"If, however, the applicant can show sufficient public interest in disclosure, the bar (preventing disclosure) is lifted and after duly notifying the third party (the individual concerned with the information or whose records are sought) and after considering his views, the authority can disclose it," they said.

Highlighting how the right to information often clashes with the right to privacy, the court noted that the government stores a lot of information about individuals, supplied by the individuals themselves in applications made for obtaining various licences, permissions including passports, or through disclosures such as income tax returns or for census data.

"When an applicant seeks access to government records containing personal information concerning identifiable individuals, it is obvious that these two rights are capable of generating conflict," the court said, adding that "in some cases, this will involve disclosure of information pertaining to public officials. In others, it will involve disclosure of information concerning ordinary citizens. In each instance, the subject of the information can plausibly raise a privacy protection concern."

However, the court ruled that notes made by the judges do not come under the RTI act, the court said the notes taken by judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views expressed by them on the case. "They are meant only for the use of the judges and cannot be held to be a part of a record 'held' by the public authority. However, if the judge turns in notes along with the rest of his files to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed."

Maintaining that the right to information may not always have a linkage with the freedom of speech, the court said: "If a citizen gets information, certainly his capacity to speak will be enhanced."

"But many a time, he needs information which may have nothing to do with his desire to speak. He may wish to know how an administrative authority has used its discretionary powers. He may need information as to whom the petrol pumps have been allotted. The right to information is required to make the exercise of discretionary powers by the executive transparent and, therefore, accountable because such transparency will act as a deterrent against unequal treatment," the court said.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Supreme Court : Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2007

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007

PETITIONER:
SHARE MEDICAL CARE

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2007

BENCH:
C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs.10429 to 10431 OF 2005)

C.K. THAKKER, J.

Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against a common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad on December 31, 2004 in Writ
Petition Nos. 22734 & 22735 of 1996 and 3355 of 2001.
Few facts which are necessary for understanding the
controversy are that the appellantShare Medical Care is
a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana
Area) Public Societies Act, 1350 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350 F)
('Society' for short) and owes its origin to the desire of Non
Resident Indian (NRI) Scientists and Doctors based in the
United States of America (USA). The aim of the Society is
to share the advanced technology with the citizens of
India. The appellant-Society was established with the
intention to construct and run hospitals, medical and
diagnostic centers, etc. It is a charitable hospital and is
run on 'no-profit' basis. It is located at village Ghanapur,
about 40-50 kms away from the city of Hyderabad. It
started its activities in the year 1993. It has specialized in
treatment of heart and related ailments having the latest
equipments and specialist doctors.
In the year 1992-93, the appellant-Society imported
certain medical equipments for the use in its charitable
hospital. According to the appellant, under Notification
No. 64/88-Cus dated March 1, 1988, exemptions were
granted to hospital equipments imported by specified
category of hospitals (charitable) subject to certification by
Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The table
in the notification classified hospitals in four categories.
According to the appellant, it falls under Para No.3 of the
table of notification.
The appellant, however, along with several other
hospitals, had applied for the benefit of exemption
notification not under para 3 but para 2 of the table. The
benefit of exemption was granted. Since the Society was
also entitled to exemption under para 3 of the table, an
application was made to DGHS highlighting the fact that
the appellant is a non-profit organization and had been
permitted to import medical equipments by DGHS by
certification. It has been registered as an institution to
receive donations in foreign exchange and since the area
of operations of the main hospital at Ghanapur and the
Rural Health Hospital are in rural areas, it would be
entitled to invoke para 3 of the table of notification of
exemption. The Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS,
by an order dated January 25, 2000 rejected the
application of the appellant observing therein that initially
the request was made by the appellant for exemption
under para 2 of the notification and accordingly, the
institution was granted such exemption. It was, therefore,
not open to apply for exemption under para 3 of the table
of the exemption notification and the application was
liable to be rejected.
Being aggrieved by the above order passed by the
Deputy Director General (Medical), the appellant-Society
filed the above petitions in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The High Court also dismissed the petitions
observing that it was not in dispute that the appellant
(petitioner) claimed exemption in respect of import of
hospital equipments and was allowed on the basis of its
prayer under category para 2 of the table. The High Court
noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
relied upon certain decisions in support of the contention
that a categorization could be changed but it held that the
exemption was granted in category 2 of the table, certain
information was sought which was not supplied by the
Society and the exemption was withdrawn. Regarding
category 3, however, the High Court observed that when
the appellant did not fulfill conditions relatable to category
2 institution, its claim for conversion of categorization
under category 3 was untenable. Accordingly, all petitions
were dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it
is settled law that even if exemption is granted for one
category or under one notification and the applicant is
entitled to claim more or greater benefit under other
category or other notification, the authority is duty bound
to consider the case of the applicant in the other category
or other notification and there is no question of any
estoppel or bar to such plea. It was, therefore, incumbent
upon the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS to
consider the application of the appellant on merits and
rejection of application only on the ground that the
appellant had earlier applied under category 2 and,
therefore, it was not open to it to apply under category 3
and the application was not tenable was illegal and
contrary to law. The learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that it was only because of rejection of
application on the ground of maintainability that it made
a limited prayer before the High Court to direct the
Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS to consider and
decide the application of the appellant on merits. By not
doing so, the error of law committed by the Deputy
Director General (Medical), DGHS had been repeated by
the High Court and hence both the orders are liable to be
set aside. It was submitted that the Deputy Director
General (Medical), DGHS may be asked to consider the
matter of the appellant on merits as to whether it would
be entitled to exemption under category 3.
The learned counsel for the respondents, on the
other hand, supported the order of the authority relying
on an affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Director
General (M) who stated that the representation of the
appellant was examined carefully by the authorities and it
was decided that when the appellant had voluntarily
applied under category 2 of the exemption notification, he
could not change it to category 3. Category 2 exemption
was not 'thrust upon' the appellant. The appellant-
hospital never objected the categorization of its hospital in
the past. When the said exemption benefits were
withdrawn for non-fulfillment of free treatment
obligations, the appellant represented its case as an
'afterthought' to category under para 3 of the table of
exemption notification which was rejected. It, therefore,
cannot be said that any illegality had been committed and
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. It is, no doubt,
true that initially the appellant claimed exemption under
category 2 of exemption notification which was granted.
That, however, does not mean that the appellant could not
claim exemption under category 3. So far as cancellation
of exemption under category 2 is concerned, we are not
called upon to decide legality or otherwise of the said
decision as it has not been challenged before us in the
present proceedings. The short question which we have to
answer is whether the appellant could claim exemption
under category 3 and non-consideration of the said
application by the Deputy Director General (Medical) is in
consonance with law. Our reply is in the negative. And
we are supported in our view by the decisions of this
Court.
In this connection, attention of the Court has been
invited to certain decisions by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
In Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro
Chemicals, (1997) 11 SCC 318, this Court held that if two
exemption notifications are applicable in a given case, the
assessee may claim benefit of the more beneficial one.
Similarly, in H.C.L. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New
Delhi, (2001) 130 E.L.T. 405 (SC), this Court relying upon
Indian Petro Chemicals, held that where there are two
exemption notifications that cover the case in question,
the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption
notification which may give him greater or larger relief. In
Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bombay, (2002) 7 SCC 145 : JT 2002 (6) SC 547, the
appellant was a manufacturer of bulk drugs. Exemption
was granted to him under one item. He, thereafter, filed a
revised classification list categorizing its bulk drugs under
the other Head claiming more benefit. The claim was
rejected on the ground that the appellant had not claimed
the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the
classification list and subsequently it could not be done.
The appellant approached this Court.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order, this
Court held that if no time is fixed for the purpose of
getting benefit under the exemption notification, it could
be claimed at any time. If the notification applies, the
benefit thereunder must be extended to the appellant. The
Court held that the authorities as well as the Tribunal
were not right in holding that the appellant ought to have
claimed the benefit of the notification at the time of filing
of classification lists and not at a subsequent stage.
The Court then stated;
"There can be no doubt that the authorities
functioning under the Act must, as are in duty
bound, protect the interest of the Revenue by
levying and collecting the duty in accordance with
law - no less and also no more. It is no part of
their duty to deprive an assessee of the benefit
available to him in law with a view to augment the
quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue.
They must act reasonably and fairly".
(emphasis supplied)


In Kerala State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, (1998) 5 SCC 48 : JT 1998 (4) SC 145,
interpreting Section 80-P(2)(a) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, this Court said;
"We may notice that the provision is introduced
with a view to encouraging and promoting growth
of co-operative sector in the economic life of the
country and in pursuance of the declared policy of
the Government. The correct way of reading the
different heads of exemption enumerated in the
section would be to treat each as a separate and
distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question
arises as to whether any particular category
of an income of a co-operative society is
exempt from tax what has to be seen is
whether income fell within any of the several
heads of exemption. If it fell within any one
head of exemption, it would be free from tax
notwithstanding that the conditions of
another head of exemption are not satisfied
and such income is not free from tax under
that head of exemption. The expression
"marketing" is an expression of wide import. It
involves exchange functions such as buying and
selling, physical functions such as storage,
transportation, processing and other commercial
activities such as standardisation, financing,
marketing intelligence etc. Such activities can be
carried on by an Apex Society rather than a
primary society". (emphasis supplied)


From the above decisions, it is clear that even if an
applicant does not claim benefit under a particular
notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred,
prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a
later stage.
In the instant case, the ground which weighed with
the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS for non-
considering the prayer of the appellant was that earlier,
exemption was sought under category 2 of exemption
notification, not under category 3 of exemption
notification and exemption under category 2 was
withdrawn. This is hardly a ground sustainable in law. On
the contrary, well settled law is that in case the applicant
is entitled to benefit under two different Notifications or
under two different Heads, he can claim more benefit and
it is the duty of the authorities to grant such benefits if
the applicant is otherwise entitled to such benefit.
Therefore, non-consideration on the part of the Deputy
Director General (Medical), DGHS to the prayer of the
appellant in claiming exemption under category 3 of the
notification is illegal and improper. The prayer ought to
have been considered and decided on merits. Grant of
exemption under category 2 of the notification or
withdrawal of the said benefit cannot come in the way of
the applicant in claiming exemption under category 3 if
the conditions laid down thereunder have been fulfilled.
The High Court also committed the same error and hence
the order of the High Court also suffers from the same
infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
Strong reliance was placed by the respondents on a
decision of this Court in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 759 : JT
1997 (1) SC 270. In Mediwell Hospital, the Court was
considering the very same notification 64/88 and grant of
exemption to hospital equipments imported by specified
category of hospitals. The Court held that an Individual
Diagnostic Centre if covered by the notification, could
claim import of equipments without paying customs duty.
But in case of failure on the part of the persons availing
the benefit to satisfy conditions laid down in the
notification, it is incumbent on the authorities to recover
such duty.
The Court stated;
The competent authority, therefore, should
continue to be vigilant and check whether the
undertakings given by the applicants are being
duly complied with after getting the benefit of
the exemption notification and importing the
equipment without payment of customs duty
and if on such enquiry the authorities are
satisfied that the continuing obligation are not
being carried out then it would be fully open to
the authority to ask the person who have
availed of the benefit of exemption to pay the
duty payable in respect of the equipments
which have been imported without payment of
customs duty. Needless to mention the
government has granted exemption from
payment of customs duty with the sole object
that 40% of all outdoor patients and entire
indoor patients of the low income group whose
income is less than Rs.500/- p.m. would be
able to receive free treatment in the Institute.
That objective must be achieved at any cost,
and the very authority who have granted
such certificate of exemption would ensure
that the obligation imposed on the persons
availing of the exemption notification are
being duly carried out and on being satisfied
that the said obligations have not been
discharged they can enforce realisation of the
customs duty from them.


In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that in
the light of the observations in Mediwell Hospital, the
Director General of Health Services and Department of
Health decided to review cases of all (396) beneficent
institutions who had availed of benefits under notification
64/88, and the appellant was one of them. Since it was
found that the appellant was not fulfilling the conditions
set out in para 2 of the Table, the benefit was withdrawn.
In our opinion, the decision in Mediwell Hospital
would not take away the right of the appellant to claim
benefit under para 3 of the Table of exemption
notification. If the appellant is not entitled to exemption
under para 2, it cannot make grievance against denial of
exemption. But if it is otherwise entitled to such benefit
under para 3, it cannot be denied either. The contention
of the authorities, therefore, has no force and must be
rejected.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondent-
authorities are directed to re-consider the case of the
appellant as to exemption in category 3 of the exemption
notification strictly in accordance with law, on its own
merits and without being inhibited by the observations
made by us hereinabove. The appeal is allowed with
costs.