The Indian Medical Association is up in arms, again. This time, the influential doctors' association is agitating against the National Medical Commission Bill, 2017, expected to be introduced in the Lok Sabha in the ongoing monsoon session. The proposed law that seeks to replace the Medical Council of India was introduced in the lower house of the Parliament in December 2017, and following major protests by the IMA, the Bill was referred to a parliamentary standing committee.
The IMA is contending that, out of the 24 amendments suggested by the committee in the final version of the Bill, the government has accepted only one recommendation in totality, and three others in a “partial manner”. “The NMC Bill remains anti-democratic, anti-federal, anti-poor, pro-rich, anti-backward communities, anti-human and intends to centralize authority with the government of India,” said Dr Ravi Wankhedkar, president, IMA.
According to the IMA, the problems with the previous version of the Bill have not been addressed – elected members in the proposed Commission stand at five (the demand was to increase it to 9), and the total number of members is still 25 (as opposed to the recommendation to increase it to 29). “The composition of the members is not representative, as the membership is largely by nomination and appointment by the Centre, except the 5 elected members therein,” a statement issued by the IMA said. States, too, remain under-represented, it said, even as the authority of the State Medical Councils has also been undermined.
Other issues that the IMA is agitating against include the common exit exam (final year exam) for MBBS students, and powers to decide the fees for medical students. The IMA is arguing that the “stringent” conditions under which the final year MBBS examination will be conducted would “prejudice the interest of rural medical colleges as well as the students from poor and socio-economic backward classes”. They are also contending that since the proposed criteria for clearing the final year exam and qualifying for NEET PG is based on percentage—students should get 50 per cent marks—it will lead to a chaotic situation. First, this will mean that students belonging to the SC, ST and OBC category would be disadvantaged when it comes to being eligible for post graduation entrance exams. Looking at the results of the past two years, IMA members argue that among students belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories, only a small percentage scored 50 per cent marks or more in the final year exam. The percentage of students from these categories scoring more than 50 per cent marks was lesser than those in the general category, and the proposed exit test did not even have the provision of a relaxation for SC, ST and OBC students in terms of cut-off criteria. Currently, that was not the case, and since qualifying NEET PG was based on the “percentile” (indicates the number of students ahead of you) criteria, many students made it through, despite scoring low percentage marks in the final year exam.
Besides this, IMA members contend that the proposed law has a clause which says that fees for 50 per cent of the seats in private colleges and deemed universities would now be fixed by the institutions themselves. “It will be the discretion of the management to charge any amount of fee that they would feel appropriate,” the IMA said in a statement on the issue. Several private medical colleges in Uttarakhand and Maharashtra had already raised their fees, after the proposed law came in public domain, said the statement.
Regarding the bridge course for AYUSH professionals, IMA members say that the government has framed the issue in an ambiguous manner by allowing states to decide on such courses based on the rural healthcare needs. This, IMA members argue, is another way of “validating mixo-pathy and quackery”. The IMA is also raising the issue of the retrenchment clause for current MCI employees that exists in the Bill.