The document discusses the proposed National Commission for Human Resources for Health (NCHRH) Bill 2011 and the Indian Medical Association's opposition to replacing the existing Medical Council of India and other regulatory bodies with the NCHRH. The key reasons for opposition are: 1) The NCHRH would be an autocratic body with only appointed members rather than a democratic body with elected representatives from medical professionals and councils. 2) It would centralize power with the central government and undermine the federal structure by reducing states' rights. 3) Citizens would lose fundamental rights and legal remedies as decisions could not be challenged in court. The IMA argues that the existing councils with democratic structures should be restored through

1. NCHRH

2. Background…….
• MCI formed by an Act of Parliament – IMC
Act, 1956
• Dissolved in April 2010
• Function of 130 members taken over by 7
handpicked Board of Governors (BoG)
• Extension of BoG sought after 1 year; No. of BoG
brought down to 6
• Third year NCHRH Bill 2011 was introduced
• Opposed by Professionals, Parliamentarians &
CMs
• Extension of BoG sought again in the 3rd year
What next ? NCHRH

3. MCI – Role and Functioning
• Statutory Body to Regulate Medical Education
& Practice
• Representatives of Medical Professionals all over
India
• Nominees – Governments – Central & State
• Elected Members
• Indian Medical Register (IMR)
• Standardize Medical Schools – UG & PG education
• Ensure good Medical Practice
MCI must be independent of Government control
but be accountable to the Parliament
NCHRH

4. Why MCI was Dissolved?
 MCI dissolved in April 2010 upon alleged
corruption charges
 Many heads of statutory bodies of India facing
corruption charges
 However, the Institutions are not dissolved and
are still functioning
 Why should MCI singularly be dissolved?
 MoHFW repeatedly trying to usurp the
autonomy of MCI
 Supreme Court Committee in 2002 testified the
need for autonomy of MCI
NCHRH

5. Indian Medical Council Amendment
Bill, 2005
 In 2005, the then Union Health minister,
Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss, tried unsuccessfully
to bring in a legislation to dissolve the MCI
and set up another council under the control
of the Health Ministry.
 The Parliamentary Committee rejected it
NCHRH

6. Powers of MoHFW on MCI
Powers to form Rules & notify them.
Prior approval of Govt. is needed to notify
regulations
Right to constitute Enquiry Committee
37 Nominated members
To start new Medical colleges / Courses, MCI is only a
Recommending Authority
Direct Control of PG education rests with Medical
Education Committe, 6 of whom are nominated by
the Government out of a total of 9
NCHRH

7. NCHRH BILL 2011
IMA strongly opposes NCHRH Bill 2011. Why?
• The framework of the Bill seriously falls short
of any evidence affirming at an honest
attempt to achieve its listed objectives.
• This Bill does not assure of any improvement
in quality of Health Care and accessibility
NCHRH

8. Vision of NCHRH Bill
• To consolidate the laws in certain disciplines of
Health sector.
• To promote Human Resources in the health
sector
• To provide for mechanism for the determination,
maintenance, coordination and regulation of
standards of health education throughout the
country.
• To ensure adequate availability of human
resources in all the states.
NCHRH

9. IMA’s Objections - NCHRH Bill
• The purported object of the Bill to provide
healthcare for all, is hidden from the perspective
of the individual regulatory bodies and is
untenable to be considered enough reason to
bring in this Bill with sweeping powers.
• Classical example of colorable exercise of power
and abuse of legislative process.
• The case for abolishing the existing institutions
is unconvincing and by taking away the powers
of these autonomous councils, the Govt. loses
credibility in the eyes of people of India.
NCHRH

10. NCHRH Bill 2011
Political & Conceptual Objections:
• Lack of Representative Character
• Non conducive to the Federal Nature
• Loss of Autonomy of the only elected bodies,
National councils.
• Lack of Democratic structure and loss of Federal
character in the Commission, Board and Committee
• Elected National Councils have been stripped of the
power & meant for Registration & disciplinary
procedures only
Replacing Democratic Body with Autocratic Nominated Body
is nothing but betrayal of
Democratic norms and Federalism
NCHRH

11. NCHRH Bill 2011
Technical Objections:
• The word “Medical” as “Modern Medical”
• The word “Medical Practitioner” as “Modern Medical
Practitioner”
• The Bill has failed in defining Dentistry, AYUSH, Nursing,
Pharmacy, Pharmacists and Paramedical Personnel.
• Does not take cognizance of:
– Rehabilitation Council of India Act 1991,
– Delhi council for Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy Act
1971,
– Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy &
Physiotherapy Act 2002,
– Gujarat State Council for occupation Therapy & Physiotherapy
Act 2011
– Tamil Nadu State Council for Physiotherapy
NCHRH

12. NCHRH Bill 2011
Technical Objections (Contd.):
• State Council Registration entailing practice in that State
only
• Engagement of Medical Professional in any other
Business is termed as Misconduct – is unconstitutional
• Governmental control enabling removal of
Chairperson/member of Commission is dictatorship
• Funds & Assets of councils to be transferred to NCHRH –
cannot be transferred to a common pool
• Decisions of Commission cannot be questioned in court
of Law – Against natural justice
• Non Medical persons govern Medical Profession – Only
medical professionals to decide on medical related
issues
NCHRH

13. NCHRH Bill 2011
Technical Objections (Contd.):
National Board of Health Education:
• Medical Education will be handled by 7 members of
National Board of Health Education – State
representative not included
• Cross disciplinary progress will promote Quackery
National Evaluation & Assesment Committee:
• 6 members with a Quorum of 2 will decide on nearly
20,000 Health Institutions in all disciplines –
inadequate Quorum
• Using external evaluation agency will increase
discrepancy and inefficiency
NCHRH

14. NCHRH Bill 2011 Summary ……….
Indian Medical Association does not accept
NCHRH Bill 2011, for the undermentioned reasons:
• Democracy is lost to Autocracy:
– Representative character of the Democratic Institution is
lost. Only appointed members with uncertain tenure
Can the Indian Parliament become an Appointed Body?
• Federal Fabric of Indian Constitution is lost.
– Right of States being usurped by the Central Government.
• Fundamental Right of Citizen is eroded.
– No legal remedy for Disputes
– Doctors engaging in other Profession is misconduct.
– Registration with State Council is valid only for that state
NCHRH

15. NCHRH Bill 2011 Summary ……….
Indian Medical Association does not accept
NCHRH Bill 2011, for the undermentioned reasons:
• NCHRH Bill will pave way for corruption.
– External Evaluation Agency is a standing example.
• National Board of Health Education with 6 members will
not be able to control the vast number of institutions &
courses .
• Funds of Democratic Councils cannot be transferred to
an Autocratic Body.
• Decentralization is the way to better organization and
achievements but NCHRH Bill will lead to Centralization
of powers leading to poor performance of the custodian
of Medical Education which will jeopardize tomorrows
Health Care and Health science education of India
NCHRH

16. What is the way forward?
IMA’s Health Vision for India
• To retain the Autonomous Representative
character of Medical & Allied Councils
functioning in a Transparent manner.
NCHRH

17. Solutions…..
• Restore the Medical Council of India &
Allied National Councils by conducting
elections democratically immediately
• Increase the number of elected members
from the Indian Medical Register (IMR)
pro-rata, Professional Bodies & Health care
professionals.
• Let the councils be observed keenly by the
MoHFW using the powers vested with them in
a structured manner and adequate checks &
balances.
NCHRH

18. Time tested….
1. The existing institutions have stood the
test of time and have served the nation
well.
2. They have a democratic structure and a
representative character.
3. The plurality of the voices represented
reflect the Federal nature of our Union.
4. The nominated / appointed NCHRH can
never have either the legitimacy nor the
wisdom of the present institutions.
NCHRH

19. NCHRH