AYUSH & Healthcare delivery

11 January 2015

Before the Hon. Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare & AYUSH (Independent Charge) —

Sri Shripad Yesso Naik

Respected Health Minister Sri Shripad Yesso Naik,

            We, the members of QPMPA, extend to you a warm welcome to Kerala. As Minister for AYUSH we are confident that the doctors under AYUSH will soon become a major force in healing Indians under your care. They will manage nearly 60% of the sick in India, majority of them in rural areas. We humbly request you to maintain the “Lakshman Rekha” for all systems of treatment and not to dilute it for cheap popularity. Kindly do not forget the “A, B, C & D” of your leader.

AYUSH discussion — Kollam, Kerala

Subject:              What should be the role of AYUSH in health care?

ANSWER —

1 — The ancient systems of medicine, whether in India, Greece or China or Africa, as well as the various herbal medicines used, are a great repository of human endeavour towards improving health and alleviating disease and suffering and need to be studied, researched, developed and promoted.

2 — As per the government web site:

        “Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) was created in March, 1995 and renamed as Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) in November, 2003 with a view to providing focused attention to development of Education & Research in Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy systems. The Department continued to lay emphasis on up-gradation of AYUSH educational standards, quality control and standardization of drugs, improving the availability of medicinal plant material, research and development and awareness generation about the efficacy of the systems domestically and internationally.

Objectives:

        To upgrade the educational standards in the Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy colleges in the country.

        To strengthen existing research institutions and ensure a time-bound research programme on identified diseases for which these systems have an effective treatment.

        To draw up schemes for promotion, cultivation and regeneration of medicinal plants used in these systems.

        To evolve Pharmacopoeial standards for Indian Systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy drugs.” —

 http://indianmedicine.nic.in/index2.asp?slid=19&sublinkid=15&lang=1

3 — It is unfortunate that in spite of the stated aims and objectives, the government continues to spend its efforts and utilising its information machinery towards the objectionable vision of promoting quackery (as defined by the Supreme Court) by claiming parity with allopathy, which has now come to be used as a short name for the modern system of medicine.

4 — The question as to who is a quack arose in Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel and Others, decided by the Supreme Court on 10.05.1996, reported as 4 SCC 332, (Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad JJ). The judgment can be viewed at — http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/611474/

Para 41 of the judgment is reproduced below: —

        “41. A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a charlatan.”

5 — It needs to be remembered that mere possessing knowledge of a particular System of Medicine is not enough. One must be licensed by the concerned statutory authority to practice that particular system of medicine. The three main councils established for this purpose by statute are the following:

i) — The Indian Medical Council established under the IMC Act, 1956.

ii) — The Central Council of Indian Medicine established under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.

iii) — The Central Council of Homoeopathy established under the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973.

            In order to make it clear, let us assume that a student completes the MBBS course and passes the examination but does not get himself registered with the medical council. Or, in the alternative, let us assume that a doctor registered with the medical council ceases to be so registered. In both these instances, he would continue to possess knowledge of the modern system of medicine but, in spite of this, he would be legally incompetent to practice medicine as a medical practitioner.

6 — While it is the essence of democracy that there should be freedom to have and implement different and even divergent views and practices, such freedom cannot be allowed so far as to condone illegality. Practice of allopathy by AYUSH is clearly illegal as held by the Supreme Court in the Mukhtiar Chand judgment. Unfortunately, the government and its ministers have been spreading falsehood in the very name of the Mukhtiar Chand judgment, as detailed below.

        — Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., Date of Judgment: 08/10/1998, K. T. Thomas, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, AIR 1999, SC 468, (1998 (7) SCC 579).     http://indiankanoon.org/doc/23583/

7 — The example of an attempt to mislead the people about the permissibility of AYUSH to practice allopathy is the statement dated 24-8-2005 in the Lok Sabha of parliament in the form of answer to a question. Both the question and the answer are reproduced below:

Unstarred question No. 4235 in Lok Sabha, regarding

“Permission to BAMS graduates to practice modern medicine.”

            “QUESTION — Will the Minister HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE be pleased to state:-

(a) Whether the Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Medicine Services (BAMS), Integrated Medical Graduates are being allowed to practice Modern System of Medicine in the country;

(b) If so details thereof;

(c) If not the reasons thereof; and

(d) The time by when it is likely to be considered by the Government.

ANSWER:

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DR. ANBUMANI RAMADOSS)

(a) to (d) This matter was examined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. Vs. the State of Punjab, civil appeal No. 89 of 1987. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that harmonious reading of section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and section 17 of Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) 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 practice Modern Scientific Medicine in any of its branches unless the person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the meaning of 1956 Act. However the right to prescribe Modern Medicine by practitioners of Indian Medicine under Rule 2 (ee) (iii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 would be available in those States where privilege of such right to practice any system of medicine is conferred by the State Law under which practitioners of Indian Medicine registered in the state.”

8 — It appears that the Health Minister has purposely given an evasive answer. Though the answer is basically correct, he should have quoted the SC judgment correctly. It is correct that – “However the right to prescribe Modern Medicine by practitioners of Indian Medicine under Rule 2 (ee) (iii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 would be available in those States where privilege of such right to practice any system of medicine is conferred by the State Law under which practitioners of Indian Medicine registered in the state”. It needs to be remembered that, at present, there is no state where the privilege to practice any system of medicine is conferred by state law upon practitioners of “Indian Medicine registered in the state”. The minister ought to have mentioned this fact for sake of truth and clarity rather than give a vague and potentially misleading answer.

            The evasive intention of the minister is obvious. He evaded giving direct and specific replies to specific questions. He has quoted from the Mukhtiar Chand judgment and has avoided a clear reply. He should have been straightforward and taken the bull by the horns. If I were the minister, I would have replied to each specific question as follows:

Clear and specific replies ought to have been as follows:

(a) Whether the Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Medicine Services (BAMS), Integrated Medical Graduates are being allowed to practice Modern System of Medicine in the country;

ANSWER — No.

(b) If so details thereof;

ANSWER — Not applicable.

(c) If not the reasons thereof;

ANSWER — Because it is not permitted in terms of the existing laws and the Supreme Court judgments.

(d) The time by when it is likely to be considered by the Government.

ANSWER — The government cannot consider something which is against law.

9 — The above was followed by a question in the Rajya Sabha regarding the same issue. Intriguingly, this was widely spread, for reasons not clear, by the Ministry of Health in the form of a press release reproduced below:

“Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 20 August, 2007 13:20 IST”

“AYUSH practitioners prescribing allopathic medicines”

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 judgment 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, 1945, 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 practising 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 practising 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 thereunder 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 practising recognizes their qualification as sufficient for registration in the State Medical Register.

This information was given by the Minister for Health & Family Welfare, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha.

 KR/SK/95 — RS    (Release ID :30117)” — http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=30117

10 — The above long winded press release is nothing but a camouflaged misrepresentation of the Mukhtiar Chand judgment given by the Supreme Court in 1998. The job of the government should be to correctly inform the public and not to motivatedly give misinformation in the guise of information. The government, unfortunately, has been misinforming the public to achieve its hidden agenda, which is to support quackery so as to ensure a vote bank.

            The above release is, in fact, correct in what it says in words but is incorrect, in what it implies. It is clear that the government tried to spread the implied meaning in such a language that was full of legalese and legally correct, though coloured enough to confuse an ordinary person and lead him to arrive at a contrary, intended and illegal conclusion.

In this connection, the following points need to be noted:

i) — Ref.: “Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 2 (ee) (iii) as well as the notifications issued by various State Governments thereunder allowing Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homoeopathy practitioners to prescribe allopathic medicines.”

>>> The judgment says that they can prescribe only those medicines known as OTC (Over the Counter) medicines which can be bought by anybody from a drug store without a medical prescription). This part of the judgment has been concealed in the press release.

ii) — Ref.: “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.”

>>> The fact is that there is such state as mentioned! The Minister certainly knew this but gave a misleading reply to the extent that he concealed this fact.

iii) — Ref.: “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 practising recognizes their qualification as sufficient for registration in the State Medical Register.”

>>> As per the Indian Central Medicine Council Act, 1970, there is NO degree like “a degree in an integrated course”! Moreover, there is no state act of the type mentioned in any of the states!

11 — The AYUSH graduates claim that a very high bulk of their teaching course consists of modern medicine and, by virtue of such claim, they possess knowledge of modern medicine and hence they should be permitted to practice allopathy / modern medicine. Such a claim has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Mukhtiar Chand judgment in the following words:

            “However, the claim of those who have been notified by State Governments under clause (iii) of rule 2 (ee) of the Drugs Rules and those who possess degrees in integrated courses to practice allopathic medicine is sought to be supported from the definition of the Indian Medicine in Section 2 (e) of 1970, reproduced below:

            “(e) “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 may declare by notification from time to time ........ lot of emphasis is sought to be laid on the words “whether supplemented or not by such modern advances” to show that they indicate modern scientific medicine as under integrated systems various branches of modern scientific medicine have been included in the syllabi. Based on those clarifications, the arguments proceed that persons who registered under the 1970 Act and have done integrated courses, are entitled to practise allopathic medicine. In our view, all that the definition of ‘Indian Medicine’ and the clarifications issued by the Central Council enable such practitioners of Indian medicine is to make use of the modern advances in various sciences such as Radiology Report, (x-ray), complete blood picture report, lipids report, ECG, etc., for purposes of practising in their own system. However, if any State Act recognized the qualification of integrated course as sufficient qualification for registration in the State Medical Register of that State, the prohibition of Section 15 (2) (b) will not be attracted.”

12 — Those who claim that AYUSH can practice allopathy cite in their support Section 2 (1) (e) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners’ Act, 1961, reproduced below:

“2 (1) (e) “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 may declare by notification from time to time.”

            It has been claimed that by virtue of the words “whether supplemented or not by such modern advances”, in the above definition, Indian Medicine is inclusive of Modern Medicine. This has been held as incorrect by the SC in the Mukhtiar Chand judgment in the following words:

        “However, the claim of those who have been notified by State Governments under clause (iii) of rule 2 (ee) of the Drugs Rules and those who possess degrees in integrated courses to practice allopathic medicine is sought to be supported from the definition of the Indian Medicine in Section 2 (e) of 1970 Act, referred to above, meaning 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 may declare by notification from time to time. Lot of emphasis is laid on the words underlined to show that they indicate modern scientific medicine as under integrated systems’ various branches of modern scientific medicine have been included in the syllabi. A degree holder in integrated courses is imparted not only the theoretical knowledge of modern scientific medicine but also training thereunder, is the claim. We shall examine the notifications issued by the Central Council to ascertain the import of those words.”

13 — The first notification of the CCIM was dated March 11, 1987, and reads—

“This meeting of the Central Council hereby unanimously resolved that in Clause (e) of Subsection 2 (1) of 1970 Act of the IMCC Act, ‘the modern advances’, the drug has advanced made under the various branches of modern scientific system of medicine, clinical, non-clinical, biosciences, also technological innovations made from time to time and declare that the courses and curriculum conducted and recognised by the CCIM are supplemented by such modern advances.”

14 — The second notification of the CCIM was dated 30-10-1996 and reads —

“As per provision under Section 2(1) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, hereby Central Council of Indian Medicine notifies that ‘institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian System of Medicine (Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani) are eligible to practise Indian system of medicine and modern medicine including Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the syllabi of courses of ISM prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine after approval of the Government of India. The meaning of the word ‘modern medicine’ (Advances) means advances made in various branches of Modern scientific medicine, clinical, non-clinical biosciences also technological innovations made from time to time and notify that the courses and curriculum conducted and recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine are supplemented by such modern advances.”

15 — The Supreme Court considered the above notifications and held as follows: —

“Based on those clarifications, the arguments proceed that persons who registered under the 1970 Act and have done integrated courses, are entitled to practise allopathic medicine. In our view, all that the definition of ‘Indian Medicine’ and the clarifications issued by the Central Council enable such practitioners of Indian medicine is to make use of the modern advances in various sciences such as Radiology Report, (x-ray), complete blood picture report, lipids report, ECG., etc., for purposes of practising in their own system. However, if any State Act recognized the qualification of integrated course as sufficient qualification for registration in the State Medical Register of that State, the prohibition of Section 15 (2) (b) will not be attracted. 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. The right to practise modern scientific medicine or Indian system of medicine cannot be based on the provisions of the Drugs Rules and declaration made thereunder by State Governments.”

16 — In short, the Supreme Court has clearly held in the Mukhtiar Chand judgment that,

“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. The right to practise modern scientific medicine or Indian system of medicine cannot be based on the provisions of the Drugs Rules and declaration made thereunder by State Governments.”

17 — Some state governments have permitted vaids and hakims to practice allopathy illegally. The Maharashtra government issued a gazette notification in 1992 permitting hakims and vaids to prescribe allopathic drugs. Such notification is liable to be quashed by the courts. As a matter of fact, belatedly, the IMA, Maharashtra, is believed to have challenged such notification in the High Court by way of a writ petition filed in 2014.

18 — It is unfortunate that hospitals and nursing homes continue to employ AYUSH graduates in the garb of regular modern medicine practitioners sporting a white coat and stethoscope. In this connection, it may be mentioned that in Prof. P. N. Thakur vs. Hans Charitable Hospital, NC, (DOD 16 Aug. 2007)— III (2007) CPJ 340 NC, — http://ncdrc.nic.in/OP21497.HTML — the National Consumer Commission observed in para 20 of the judgment as follows:

“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 ......... 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.”

            The national IMA has taken note of the above and, with the start of the year 2015, has resolved to curb this practice on the part of the modern medicine hospitals.

19 — Even the central government does not want to be left behind in conferring upon the AYUSH practitioners a right to practice allopathy. An attempt in this direction is reflected in the Notification No. 12015/49/2008 - MCH, dated the 29th October 2014, whereby the government published on its web site a bill proposed to amend the MTP Act, 1971, in such a manner as to allow Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathic doctors to perform MTP. This is an undesirable move. It is not accompanied by any statement from the government regarding the background, need and objects of the proposed legislation. The proposed amendment bill can be viewed at — http://mohfw.nic.in/showfile.php?lid=2986

20 — It is unfortunate that the AYUSH department of the ministry of health has devoted no attention to develop the indigenous and ancient systems of medicine but has mainly focused its efforts on trying to equate the practitioners of traditional systems with practitioners of modern medicine. In other words, the ministry of health is actively trying to promote quackery by legalising it.

21 — There are several High Court judgments holding that AYUSH cannot practice modern medicine / allopathy. For example, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed in CWP No. 4754 of 2002 (Dr. Tarsem Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab, decided on 24.10.2002) as follows — “A careful reading of the judgment of supreme court in Mukhtiar Chand case (supra) makes it clear that a person who is not enrolled on the state medical register within the meaning of the 1956 act, cannot practice modern system of medicine.”

22 — Similarly, the High Court of Allahabad observed in CWP No. 64481 of 2012 (Praveen Kumar versus State of U.P., DOD 16.12.2013) as follows —

“Said definition has been used in different context and same does not authorize incumbent having qualification under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 to start prescribing medicine which the incumbents registered under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 only can administer. Petitioner cannot be permitted to prescribe allopathic/modern medicine as is provided for under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, by any means, as a person having studied one particular system of medicine cannot possibly claim deep and complete knowledge about the drugs of the other system of medicine, and specially when right to health and medical care is fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39 (c), 41 and 43 of Constitution, as expressed by Apex Court, in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922, and by further providing that right to life includes protection of health and strength and the minimum requirement to enable the persons to live with dignity. Petitioner will have to practice in his own branch, and it would be an extremely grave situation, to allow petitioner to treat and prescribe a sick incumbent with allopathic medicine. The transgression into other branches of medicine as has been prayed for is not permissible, as same would tantamount to quackery and exposing petitioner to cancellation of registration and prosecution.” http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

23 — Vaids and hakims are often registered as RMPs under Rule 2 (ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. On the basis of such registration, they falsely claim that having been registered as RMPs under the Drugs Act and having been permitted to store and supply allopathic medicines, they are legally permitted to practice allopathy. This is entirely wrong. The Supreme Court has held in Mukhtiar Chand that the declaration of an unqualified person as a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2 (ee) was only for the purpose of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not for the purpose of the IMC Act, 1956. In other words, the court clarified that if a person was labelled as a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2 (ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, such labelling only entitled him to store allopathic drugs which would otherwise be illegal under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act / Rules. The court drew attention to the fact that in term of section 15 (2) (b) of the IMC Act, “no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in any State.”

24 — AYUSH practitioners often claim that they are entitled to practice any system of medicine. There is no truth in such claim. The Supreme Court observed in Mukhtiar Chand as follows —

“To ascertain if any State law confers ‘the right to practise any system’ we have perused Bombay Medical practitioners Act, 1938; Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953; and Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 which deal with registration of practitioners of Indian Medicine in those States, as also some related Acts. But we could not lay our hands on any provision in the said State Acts under which the right to practice any system of medicine is conferred on practitioners of Indian medicine registered under those Acts.”

25 — It is sometimes claimed that the ISM practitioners have a right to practice modern medicine by virtue of the CCIM (Central Council of Indian Medicine) letter F. No. 8-5/96-Ay, dated 18.10.96. This claim and the letter were considered and rejected by the Madras High Court in Dr. J. Kaleem Nawaz vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., decided on 29 October, 2010. The judgment can be viewed at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/23583/

26 — In the above case, the petitioner, a BUMS hakim, claimed the right to administer allopathic medicines along with Unani Medicines in accordance with the training and teaching given in the B.U.M.S. degree. His petition was dismissed. The court held as follows:

“33. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chands case, (cited supra) has been misinterpreted and it is unfortunate that the deponent of the affidavit has not gone through the entire judgment especially paragraph No. 47 of the said judgment.

34. The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the circular 18.10.1996 and 30.10.1996 is of no consequence as the clarification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi that the practitioners of Indian system of medicine who practised modern scientific system of medicine, allopathic medicine are protected under Section 17 (3) (b) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, is not correct as the said authority has not taken into consideration the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Dr. Mukhtiar Chands case, (cited supra) which came to be delivered subsequent to the said notifications had also clarified that unless a person/medical practitioner registered himself in the State Register in terms of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, he cannot practice modern system/allopathic system of medicine.”

27 — It is highly unfortunate and even condemnable that the CCIM, which works under the direct control of the AYUSH dept. of the Central Ministry of Health, should misrepresent before the court as commented by the court itself. This shows the misplaced zeal of the government authorities to circumvent law and spread misinformation and even plead falsely before the courts in support of its wrong policies.

28 — The circular 18.10.1996, as given in the above judgment itself, is reproduced below:

“Letter F. No. 8-5/96-Ay, dated 18.10.96 from the Secretary, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, addressed to the Health Secretaries of all State Governments, wherein it has been stated as follows:-

Subject:        Rights & Privileges of Practitioners of ISM. The resolution therefore.

        With reference to the subject mentioned above, I am to inform you that rights and privileges of Indian System of Medicine practitioners have been protected under Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 which provides as under:-

        Nothing contained in Subsection (2) shall affect privileges (including the right to practice any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian Medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine. I am further to inform you that the matter was considered by the Executive Committee of the Council. The Committee discussed and passed the following resolution:-

        Institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian System of Medicine (Ayurvedic, Unani & Siddha) and those covered under Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 are eligible to practice Indian System of Medicine and modern medicines, which is commonly known as Allopathic Medicines including Surgery, Gynaecology and obstetrics, based on their training and teaching. This training and teaching is included in the syllabus of C.C.I.M. The meaning of word Modern Medicine (Advances) means the advances made in various branches of Modern Scientific Medicine, Clinical, Non-clinical, Biosciences.

        You are requested to implement the above resolution and notify the same in your State publicly.

Yours faithfully,

                                            Sd/- (Secretary)                      /True Copy/                              Sd/- REGISTRAR.”

 

29 — We, the members of QPMPA and the Modern Medical Profession, humbly request the Hon’ble Minister and Ministry not to dilute health care delivery in India for political interest / advantage or to come out with “MAYUSH” as a compromise formula by including “Modern Medicine” with the controversial “AYUSH”!

            We wish the Govt. of India under the leadership of Sri Narendra Modi all success and all the best.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       For the QPMPA,                

Dr. K. Kishore Kumar, Secretary        

 

Courtesy:— Dr. Prof. M. C. Gupta, New Delhi <[email protected]>

 

Tags: