Search This Site

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

DNB Equivalence: Letter by National Board to Teaching Institutions

National Board has sent the following restrainer order to many institutes;which ideally should be honoured by MCI officials.

From: National Board of Examinations
Date: 7/5/2008
Subject: Re: DNB equivalence

Subject: Non Approval for Appointment to teaching posts for DNB Degree

Reference: MCI Letter dated 14th September 2007


This has reference to the issue of equivalence of DNB qualification with the corresponding MD/MS degree and the above stated letter issued by Medical Council of India. Without prejudice, the regulatory position in respect of the same is as follows:-

(1) Diplomate of National Board is a recognized qualification as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. DNB qualification is included in the first schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

(2) The Government of India in its various notifications issued from time to time has upheld the status of DNB as that of equivalent qualification as MD/MS/DM/MCh. The Government of India vide latest notification dated 1st June, 2006 has upheld that holders of DNB qualification are to be treated at par with MD/MS/DM/MCh candidates even to teaching posts such as Assistant Professor or recruitment as Senior Resident. The copy of notification issued by the Government of India is enclosed along with for your kind reference.

(3) The equivalence of the DNB qualification vis-à-vis the corresponding MD/MD qualification has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology & ors Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.

One letter dated 14th September, 2007 has been issued by Medical Council of India, on the basis of which your University has issued the above stated captioned letter. The Medical Council of India letter dated 14th September, 2007 has been challenged by various DNB candidates before the Hon’ble Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to grant interim relief till final adjudication in the matter takes place. The Hon’ble High Court at Bangalore has also granted interim relief in the matter.

(5) The Government of India has submitted its detailed reply before the Hon’ble Court and the salient points in the Government of India Affidavit is stated herein below:-

"The bare perusal of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 demonstrates that Medical Council of India has been assigned purely recommendatory role for the Under Graduate Medical Education. The provision of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 clearly lay down that the recommendations of Medical Council of India have to be considered by the Central Government and which alone has to take a decision one way or the other. It is submitted that AIIMS and PGI of Medical Sciences and all such other institutions established under the Act of Parliament are outside the ambit of MCI Act but are under the administrative control of Government of India. The Central Government for reasons well defined in law has all prerogative to take decisions different from the recommendations of MCI.

That the Hon’ble Supreme Court AIR 1988 SC 1048, Govt. of AP Vs Dr. R. Murli, while considering the effect and implication of the Regulations framed by the MCI, on the basis of the affidavit of the MCI that it is only a recommendatory body and the Regulations framed by it are only recommendatory and not mandatory.

It is submitted that the DNB degree/qualification is equivalent in all respect with MD/MS degrees and the letter dated 1st June, 2006 has been issued after considering all the factors by the Government of India. In order to bring parity between MD/MS students and DNB qualification holders, it is submitted that the teaching experience gained in institutions conducting DNB courses should be treated as teaching experience for the purpose of appointment as medical teachers in medical colleges/institutions"

(6) As per the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, the role of Medical Council of India is recommendatory to the Government of India. The Medical Council of India cannot encroach upon the powers of Government of India by issuing a letter which even otherwise, is based upon incorrect observations and is a matter of adjudication before various High Courts in the country,

(7) Considering the stay granted by the Hon’ble Court in the matter and the emerging legal position and till such time, the matter is adjudicated by the Hon’ble court, it is desirable for all recruiting agencies that the status quo may kindly be maintained and the DNB degree holders should not be discriminated, demoted or their assignments/employment terminated.

Yours sincerely,

(Dr. A.K. Sood)
Executive Director

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

'Doc registered in one state can't work in another'

MUMBAI: A medical practitioner registered in one state cannot practise in another state unless his or her name finds place in the central

register, the Supreme Court has held.

The court has also noted that an unregistered medical practitioner and one without a recognised degree or qualification cannot place the prefix "Dr" before his/her name or claim to be a doctor. The two observations form the crux of a recent apex court ruling upholding a 2007 Bombay high court judgment.

The matter had reached the SC after a bench headed by Justice B H Marlapalle banned ayurvedic and unani practitioners registered under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act from practising in rural Maharashtra. The HC held that they had no recognised degree or qualification. It also banned those with a degree or diploma in electropathy or homoeo-electrotherapy to portray themselves as doctors or use the "Dr" prefix.

The SC ruling means that not everyone practising medicine can claim to be a doctor or use the "Dr" prefix. The judgment also makes it clear that unless a medical practitioner in Indian medicine is registered in the central register under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, she/he cannot practise in the country.

The SC dismissed the claim of a number of practitioners of ayurveda and unani that once they were registered in a particular state, they had the right to practise anywhere in the country.

The apex court held that the restriction placed by law was a "reasonable restriction'' and such practitioners could not claim that their fundamental right under Article 19(g) to practise their profession was being violated. "Reasonable restriction can always be put on on the exercise of right under Article 19(g),'' the court said.

The SC also held that "what constitutes proper education and requisite expertise for a practitioner in Indian medicine must be left to the proper authority having requisite knowledge in the subject''.

Many of those affected were ayurveda practitioners who possessed sufficient knowledge and skill but held no formal degree, diploma or certificate from a recognised institution.

Nikhil Datar a gynaecologist, told TOI, "The problem is that we have only five recognised schools of medical streams-allopathy, homoeopathy, ayurveda, unani and siddha. Anything other than that is not a recognised stream. You can't be called a medical graduate or doctor in the areas of homoeo-electrotherapy, electropathy, acupuncture etc."