Background note on Government Stand
1. Central Government is
envisaging starting one year course for AYUSH doctors and allowing them to
practice modern medicine. IMA attended a meeting convened by the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India on 22nd January, 2015 in
his office at 6.00 P.M.
2. Mainstreaming of
AYUSH doctors: Back Ground Note by the ministry
The Doctor Population
Ratio as per WHO norms should be 1:1000, in India it is 1:1674. Thus, there is
overall shortage of doctors in the country which is more pronounced in rural
areas. As per MCI, the total number of doctors in India as on 30.09.2014 is
9.32 lakhs. There are 6,86319 AYUSH practitioners in the country out of which
4,46,051 are ASU doctors.
Section 15 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 states that no person other than a medical
practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in
any State. Any person who acts in contravention of this shall be punished with
imprisonment of 1 year or fine of Rs 1,000 or both.
In the case of Dr.
Mukhtiyar Chand us State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
practice of modern system of medicine by ISM qualified professionals is
possible provided such professionals are enrolled in the State Medical Register
for practitioners of modern medicine maintained by the State medical Council.
The respective State Government can notify and give recognition to
qualifications eligible for registration in the State medical Register.
The Ministry requested
all the State governments vide letters dated 29th May,2013 and reminders dated
20th Novembers, 2013 and 19th March,2014 to consider amending their respective
State laws relating to registration of practitioners of modern scientific
medicine and provide an enabling provision to allow the enrolment of an ISM
professional in the State medical Register maintained for registration of the
practitioners of modern medicine by the respective State Medical Councils.
Comments were received from some of the States, which are as follows:
S.No.
|
State/UT
|
Comments
|
I.
|
Kerala
|
Govt. of Kerala doesn’t face any
shortage of doctors of modern medicine for posting in PHCs as a large number
of medical graduates will be passing out from the colleges in the state in
the next few years.
|
II.
|
Daman & Diu and Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
|
There is no State/UT Medical
Council and, hence, no enrolment of practitioners of modern medicine.
|
III.
|
Goa
|
They strongly opposed the matter.
|
IV.
|
Rajasthan
|
Initiating registration of AYUSH
doctors in State medical Register will complicate matters and will dilute the
efforts of brining them into the mainstream.
|
Under NRHM, services of
AYUSH practitioners are utilized for providing essential new-born care
services, managing common childhood illness, counseling on family planning
methods and most importantly, they render their services as Skilled Birth
Attendants (SBA).
Department of AYUSH in
consultation with National Board of Examination (NBE) prepared one year
curriculum, for bridge course to provide competency to ISM doctors to practice
modern medicines in a limited way in rural areas. Ministry requested the MCI to
vet the draft curriculum; MCI has vehemently opposed the move.
A meeting was convened to
discuss the introduction of a bridge course for AYUSH Doctors on 10th
September, 2014 in which it was decided that a bridge course may be prepared
keeping in consideration the course curriculum of B.Sc.(CH). It was agreed that
a 9 months course (6 months regular and 3 months internship) duration may be
developed for this purpose.
Department of AYUSH vides
their D.O. letter dated 23.09.2014 made the following objections:
a) The proposal to
allow ASU doctors to only dispense and not prescribe modern medicines is not
agreeable to them.
b) It will make ASU
doctors subservient to Allopathic doctors.
c) The decision to
develop a Bridge Course of 9 months on the lines of B.Sc. (CH) is a unilateral
stand of DoHFW.
Now, on 10th November,
2014, Department of AYUSH has been made a separate Ministry with Sh. Shripad
Naik, Minister of State (Independent Charge).
Discussion and IMA Point of view
Government wants that
Ayush Graduates with a bridging course should be
1. entitled to practice
and prescribe Modern Medicine Drugs
2. Also be entitled to be
included in the State Register as registered medical practitioner upon
incorporation of necessary enabling provisions in the governing State Act, in
the light of pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muktiyarchand
case.
3. Rajya Sabha
Question on Ayush practicing modern medicine
AYUSH practitioners
prescribing allopathic medicines: Rajya Sabha, information given by the
Minister for Health & Family Welfare, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in a written
reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha.
The matter regarding
qualified practitioners of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy systems
prescribing allopathic medicines has been examined in depth by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1987 Dr. Mukhtiar Chand &
Others versus State of Punjab & Others.
Representations have been
received from time to time on this matter and accordingly Department of AYUSH
entrusted the study of the contemporary acts on medical practice in the light
of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1987 Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Others
versus State of Punjab & Others and other similar judgements. Drugs can be
sold and supplied by a Pharmacist or a Druggist only on a prescription of a
Registered Medical Practitioner and who can also store them for treatment of
patients.
According to Section 2
(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1995, Registered Medical Practitioner
means a person -
(i) holding a
qualification granted by an authority specified or notified under Section 3 of
the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (7 of 1916), or specified in the Schedules
to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956); or
(ii) registered or
eligible for registration in a medical register of a State meant for the
registration of persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine
(excluding the Homoeopathy system of medicine); or
(iii) registered in
a medical register (other than a register for the registration of Homoeopathic
practitioners) of a State, who although not falling within sub-clause (i) or
sub-clause (ii) is declared by a general or special order made by the State
Government in this behalf as a person practicing the modern scientific system
of medicine for the purposes of this Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court
upheld the validity of Rule 2 (ee) (iii) as well as the notifications issued by
various State Governments there under allowing Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and
Homoeopathy practitioners to prescribe allopathic medicines.
In view of the above
judgment, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homoeopathy practitioners can prescribe
allopathic medicines under Rule 2 (ee) (iii) only in those States where they
are authorized to do so by a general or special order made by the concerned
State Government in that regard. Practitioners of Indian Medicine holding the
degrees in integrated courses can also prescribe allopathic medicines if any
State act in the State in which they are practicing recognizes their
qualification as sufficient for registration in the State Medical
Register. KR/SK/95 – RS :
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=30117,
20th August 2007
IMA Stand
- In the agenda item No. A-2
(a) : MENACE OF QUACKERY ,
the issue was discussed in the 75th Meeting of the Central Council
of IMA held on December 27-28 December, 2014 on Govt. Sponsored
Quackery. It was discussed that the Maharashtra Govt. has promulgated an
Ordinance permitting AYUSH doctors to practice modern medicine. It
was decided that IMA should publicize this as a social evil, malpractice
and should take it as a very serious issue. At the same time IMA, along
with MCI, should give stringent directions to hospitals and doctors not to
appoint AYUSH doctors as RMO / Assistants and strong action taken
against those violating the directions”.
- Following
MCI Code of Medical Ethics and Regulations 2002 dis-allow such practices
1.
“7.9 Performing or
enabling unqualified person to perform an abortion or any illegal operation for
which there is no medical, surgical or psychological indication”. The
regulations clearly prohibits taking assistance from any un qualified person
for surgery, especially abortions.
2.
"7.10 A
registered medical practitioner shall not issue certificates of efficiency in
modern medicine to unqualified or non-medical person”: The regulation again
clearly talks about that any allopathic doctor shall not appoint any
non-allopathic doctor for any allopathic services. As appointing him/her,
would amount to issuing a certificate of efficiency in modern medicine.
3.
“2.4 The Patient
must not be neglected: A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He
should, however, respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency.
Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient,
nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the
patient and his family. Provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner
shall not willfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or
patients from necessary medical care”: The regulation clearly talks about that
if there is any emergency, we have to take care of our patients
ourselves. We cannot pass on this responsibility to a unqualified
persons.
4.
“7.20 A Physician
shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that
branch”: The above regulation clarifies that because Ayush Doctors do not have
special qualification in allopathy they cannot be treated as allopathic
practitioner.
5.
“7.19 A Physician
shall not use touts or agents for procuring patients”: As this regulation we
should not use touts or agents for procuring patients. Any non allopathic
doctor, if assist us in procuring patients, the same will be a violation of the
above clause.
6.
“7.18 In the case
of running of a nursing home by a physician and employing assistants to help
him / her, the ultimate responsibility rests on the physician.”: This
regulation clearly mentions that if any MBBS doctor, appoints any Ayush Doctor,
the responsibility will be of an MBBS doctor and not that of Ayush Doctor.
7.
The Maharashtra FDA
has recently issued guidelines regarding prescription where it clearly mentions
that another doctor cannot sign on the prescription paper of treating doctor.
Provisions in Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
1.
Section 2 (f) defines the
word ‘medicine’ as ‘medicine means modern scientific medicine in all its
branches and includes surgery and obstetrics but does not include veterinary
medicine and surgery’.
2.
Section 2(a)
defines the word ‘approved institution’ as ‘a hospital, health centre or other
such institution recognized by a University as an institution in which a person
may undergo the training, if any, required by his course of study, before the
award of any medical qualification to him’.
3.
Section 2 (d)
defines the word ‘Indian Medical Register’ as ‘Indian medical registers means
the medical register maintained by the council’.
4.
Section 2 (h)
defines the word ‘recognized medical qualification’ as ‘recognized medical qualification means any of the medical
qualifications included in the schedules’.
5.
Section 2 (j)
defines the word ‘State Medical Council’ which reads ‘State Medical
Council means a medical council constituted under any law for the time being in
force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine’.
6.
Section 2 (k)
defines State Medical register’ as ‘State Medical Registers means a register
maintained under any law for the time being in force in any state regulating
the registration of practitioners of medicine’.
7.
Section 11 of the
concerned Act deals with the ‘recognition of medical qualifications granted by
Universities or medical institutions in India’ and that ‘MBBS qualification
recognized by the Medical Council of India with reference to a concerned
institution and examining University thereto duly incorporated in schedule A
amounts to the registering medical qualification for the purposes of enrolment
in the appropriate register maintained by a State medical council or the
Medical Council of India as the case may be’.
8.
Section 15 of
the Act, deals with ‘Right of person possessing qualifications in the schedules
to be enrolled’ and section 15(2)(d) clearly prescribes that “no person other
than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice
medicine in any State”.
9.
Vide provision
included at section 21 the council is duty bound to maintain Indian Medical
Register in a prescribed manner which shall contain the names of all persons
who are for the time being enrolled in any State Medical register and who
possess any of the recognized medical qualifications. The said provision has to
be harmoniously read with the provisions incorporated at section23 of the very
Act, which deals with ‘registration in the Indian Medical Register and mandates
that the Registrar of the council may, on receipt of the report or registration
of a person in a State Medical Register or on application made in the
prescribed manner by any such person, enter his name in the Indian Medical register,
provided that the registrar is satisfied that the person concerned possessed a
recognized medical qualification’.
10.
Resultantly,
section 27 of the Act, provides for the ‘privileges of the persons who are
enrolled in the Indian medical register’ to the effect ‘that every person whose
name is for the time being borne on the Indian medical register shall be
entitled according to his qualifications to practice as a medical practitioner
in any part of India and to recover in due course of law in respect of such
practice any expenses, charges in respect of medicaments or other appliances,
or any fees to which he may be entitled’.
11.
Modern medicine can be
practiced exclusively by a person who possess recognized medical qualifications
included in the appropriate schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act
and is duly registered with a concerned State Medical Council and resultantly
is included in the State Medical Register in terms of the explicit embargo as
has been brought out in Section 15(2)(b) of the IMC Act, 1956. The said position has been fortified in several pronouncements
made by the various judicial forums including the one brought out in Poonam
Varma Vs. Ashwin Patel case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992.
12.
The entitlement of
the Ayush Graduates in the State medical register will have another problem.
Who shall govern the disciplinary jurisdiction on them in regard to enforcement
of ethical conduct and practice as contemplated in the code of medical ethics
which is applicable to every registered medical practitioner possessing
registering medical qualification in modern medicine.
Supreme Court and CPA Judgments that Ayush Doctors cannot
prescribe allopathic drugs
1.
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO.214
OF 1997, " When a patient is admitted in a hospital, it is
done with the belief that the treatment given in the hospital is being given by
qualified doctors under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is not
within the knowledge of the relatives of the patient that the patient is being
treated by a Unani Specialist. We hold that it is clear deficiency in
service and negligence by the hospital for leaving the patient in the hands of
Unani doctor.
" As laid down by
Apex Court in the above case (Jacob Mathew case) , we feel it is high time that
hospital authorities realize that the practice of employing non-medical
practitioners such as Doctors specialized in Unani system and who do not
possess the required skill and competence to give allopathic treatment and to
let an emergency patient be treated in their hands is a gross negligence.We do
not wish to attribute negligence on the part of Dr. Rehan alone while the
patient was in his charge in terms of directing to pay compensation but solely
on the hospital authorities for leaving the patient in his complete care
knowing he is not qualified to treat such cases."
"Supreme Court came
down heavily in cases where Homeopathic Doctors treated the patients with
allopathic medicines. In Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel and
Others (1996) 4 SCC 332 where a doctor holding Diploma in Homeopathic
Medicine and Surgery (DHMS) and registered under Bombay Homeopathic
Practitioners Act, caused the death of a patient due to administration of
Allopathic medicine, the Supreme Court held him being not
qualified to practice Allopathy, was a quake or pretender to the medical
knowledge and skill as a charlatan and hence guilty of negligence per se.
The facts being similar in this case, we hold that there is total negligence in
treating the deceased patient."
"Thus, we feel
that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- would be appropriate amount of
compensation in face of peculiar facts and circumstances. "
2. Dr. Mukhtiar Chand
& Ors. Vs.State Of Punjab & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court on
08/10/1998, reported as AIR 1999, SC 468, (1998 (7) SCC 579) K.T. Thomas, Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri," A harmonious reading of Section 15 of 1956 Act and
Section 17 of 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a
person enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine or Central Register of
Indian Medicine to practise modern scientific medicine in any of its branches
unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the
meaning of 1956 Act."