Parliament has passed the National Medical Commission Act and the President has given assent to its implementation throughout the country. The Act replaces the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, which regulated medical activities for all practitioners of modern medicine in India.
While one may argue about several contentious issues in the Act especially the ones permitting practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine to practise modern medicine, the Act will fill in several lacunae in the previous Act, which was riddled with rules and regulations that gave unfettered powers to those at the helm of the Council, most of which were blatantly misused.
There have been multiple allegations against office-bearers of the IMC (some proved in courts of law) about rampant corruption in the system, particularly in the sanctioning of medical college licenses. Inadequacy of teaching staff had led to a ridiculous situation where doctors and teaching staff who had retired from medical college posts after completing age norms were nominated as `teachers’ in colleges across the country. Many of them attended to their teaching duties for 5 days in a month and received remuneration for the whole month as per institutional guidelines. There are examples of such teachers in Mumbai flying down to the Southern parts of India, teaching for a week and returning to their homes in Mumbai for the weekend. This was described by some as a `post-retirement’ benefit in addition to the pension drawn by many who were teaching in government colleges. Many such `teachers’ were on the roster of multiple colleges and in this modern era of technology where identities can be cross-checked in seconds, the Council was unable to verify on their veracity. Regarding the quality of education imparted, no one seemed to bother in this `win-win’ situation.
The Supreme Court of India had come down heavily on an ex-President of the Indian Medical Council, declaring him unfit to hold any important position in the said organisation. Inspite of this, the said individual managed to get re-elected to the Council and reached the post of President of the World Medical Council!
It is intriguing to see `highly qualified and educated’ medical professionals being unable to sort out the moral from the immoral, the ethical from the unethical and the capable from the incapable while electing their representatives to the Medical Councils in the States and at the Union under the previous Act. Medical professionals are privy to what happens in their profession at all times, but not a single complaint against a fellow professional to date has been initiated by a doctor under the PCPNDT Act. In calling politicians and government authorities corrupt and incompetent to the core, one really wonders if this is a case of the pot calling the hearth black. Extremely few doctors have ever mustered the courage to stand by a patient who has been treated in a negligent manner by a fellow professional, to help him or her get justice before a Consumer Court or the disciplinary committee of the Medical Council. This is in direct contrast to examples in the West, where medical professionals have testified before grand juries or given frank opinions on various treatment modalities and norms and brought black sheep in their profession to book.
The inertia in helping patients and the community/society against social evils is contrasted by the vehement protests against violence on members of the profession at times even at places distant from one’s own state. While not justifying the violence of any type against anybody, the moot question that arises is: why does the profession choose to remain silent when the rights of a patient are being blatantly violated?
Patients have now started believing that Medical Associations are ‘Doctors’ Unions’ more interested in protecting doctors from the long arms of the law, rather than meting out justice dispassionately. Evils like `cut practice’ and sharing of fees are now universally known to the public at large and are often responsible for the rage shown against the medical profession when untoward events happen due to or inspite of appropriate medical care of a patient.
As a group of highly competent and intelligent members of the society, the medical profession had a tremendous opportunity to set the tone for a vibrant political and social system by standing out as beacons of honesty and born leaders in the country. This profession is one of the few ones which is independent of all political, economic and bureaucratic pressures and does not require anything but public support to carry on their activity. There was hence a chance to set a path-breaking example of honesty and sincerity for the country and the world to admire. The profession steadfastly and after repeated warnings, refused to regulate itself, leading to the pathetic situation where it will now be legally regulated by a statutory body set up by law. One has only to wait and see if this new experiment gets even a modicum of the success it has been asked to achieve.
