Crosspathy is not allowed.Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum Vs. State of Kerala and Others

From the SupremeCourt Judgement dated 13/04/2018,on the SLP of 'Parambarya Vaidyas'....Landmark Judgement...

"In our country, the qualified practitioners are much less
than the required number. Earlier, there were very few
Institutions imparting teaching and training to the Doctors,
Vaidyas and Hakimis but the situation has changed and there
are quite a good number of Institutions imparting education in
indigenous medicines. Even after 70 years of independence,
the persons having little knowledge or having no recognized or
approved qualification are practicing medicine and playing
24
with the lives of thousands and millions of people. The right
to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under
the Constitution. But that right is subject to any law relating
to the professional or technical qualification necessary for
practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation or
trade or business. The regulatory measures on the exercise of
this right both with regard to the standard of professional
qualifications and professional conduct have been applied
keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners
but also the right to life and proper health care of persons who
need medical care and treatment".

For complete judgement and other details,please find link below.

http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2003/10091/10091_2003_Judgement_13-Apr-2018.pdf

http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=9976

Courtasy: IMA emills and advocate khoj

Hitcon 2018

IMA welcomes PM’s push for Generic Drugs with a caveat.

8.04.2017

New Delhi

IMA welcomes PM’s push for Generic Drugs with a caveat.

 Dr K K Aggarwal National President and Dr R N Tandon Hony. Secretary General of Indian Medical Association

IMA in a statement here today welcomed the push for generic drugs coming from the Prime Minister himself.

It is the policy of Indian Medical Association to help the Government to make available all drugs at an affordable cost.

For years IMA had been demanding dedicated fair price medical shops under the Government.

IMA had welcomed the Jan Aushadhi scheme of the Prime Minister and has adopted the scheme. A Jan Aushadhi generic drugs  outlet runs from IMA hqs , New Delhi .

IMA has been promoting Jan Aushadhi centers in private hospitals. IMA feels no new legislation is required to ask the doctors to prescribe generic drugs.MCI Etiquette for doctors, already stipulated this.

The concern of the medical profession regarding spurious and substandard drugs is yet to be addressed. The Government has around only 1800 Drug Inspectors for the entire country which is grossly inadequate. Indiscriminate dispensing of antibiotics and other prescription drugs by doctors not qualified in Modern Medicine, Quacks and by Over The Counter Sales has led to emergence of serious resistant microorganisms. Strict implementation of the existing laws should suffice in this regard.

The Government itself admits that less than 0.01 percent of the drugs produced in the country are tested for quality. It will not be fair on the part of the Government to expect doctors to prescribe substandard drugs.

The Government should urgently improve the administration regarding drugs by bringing the department under Ministry of Health rather than Ministry of Chemical and Petroleum affairs. Quality assurance laboratories should be urgently installed in every state.

The loopholes in governance between the Central and State Governments should be cemented. IMA on behalf of the Modern medicine doctors assures our beloved Prime Minister that his Government should follow up with all the substantial measures to facilitate wide spread usage of generic drugs.

Points

1. IMA is for promotion of drugs in National List of essential medicines which, are prize capped and cheaper
2. IMA policy is to write NLEM and non NLEM with consent of the patient
3. IMA policy is to promote Jan Aushidhi drugs
4. No one will get Jan Aushidhi drugs if the word Jan Aushidhi is not written on the prescription. Jan Aushidhi therefore is also a brand
5. All NLEM drugs should be available under one window pharmacists
6. It should be a crime of not keeping NLEM drugs
7. CGHS. PSUs and IRDA should mandate reimbursement of only NLEM drugs unless reasoned out
8. IMA is for writing the generic name of the drug alone but we ned to mention the name of the company of whose generic the patent is going to buy. The same should also be available freely
9. The answer therefore is write Generic Name of the drug, choose from NLEM, write Jan Aushidhi or a standard company name
10. Stents have become cheaper because they are now in NLEM. All other devises and disposables should also be brought under NLEM.

Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016

Here are the points to be known to every doctor

Dr K K Aggarwal

Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016

These rules shall apply to all persons who generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, dispose, or handle bio medical waste in any form including hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, dispensaries, veterinary institutions, animal houses, pathological laboratories, blood banks, ayush hospitals, clinical establishments, research or educational institutions, health camps, medical or surgical camps, vaccination camps, blood donation camps, first aid rooms of schools, forensic laboratories and research labs.

"authorised person" means an occupier or operator authorised by the prescribed authority to generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, process, dispose or handle bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules and the guidelines issued by the Central Government or the Central Pollution Control Board, as the case may be;

(f) "bio-medical waste" means any waste, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunisation of human beings or animals or research activities pertaining thereto or in the production or testing of biological or in health camps, including the categories mentioned in Schedule I appended to these rules;

Duties of the Occupier. - It shall be the duty of every occupier to

(a) Take all necessary steps to ensure that bio-medical waste is handled without any adverse effect to human health and the environment and in accordance with these rules;

(b) Make a provision within the premises for a safe, ventilated and secured location for storage of segregated biomedical waste in colored bags or containers in the manner as specified in Schedule I, to ensure that there shall be no secondary handling, pilferage of recyclables or inadvertent scattering or spillage by animals and the bio-medical waste from such place or premises shall be directly transported in the manner as prescribed in these rules to the common bio-medical waste treatment facility or for the appropriate treatment and disposal, as the case may be, in the manner as prescribed in Schedule I;

(c) Pre-treat the laboratory waste, microbiological waste, blood samples and blood bags through disinfection or sterilisation on-site in the manner as prescribed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) or National AIDs Control Organisation (NACO) guidelines and then sent to the common bio-medical waste treatment facility for final disposal;

(d) Phase out use of chlorinated plastic bags, gloves and blood bags within two years from the date of notification of these rules;

 (e) Dispose of solid waste other than bio-medical waste in accordance with the provisions of respective waste management rules made under the relevant laws and amended from time to time;

(f) Not to give treated bio-medical waste with municipal solid waste;

 (g) Provide training to all its health care workers and others, involved in handling of bio medical waste at the time of induction and thereafter at least once every year and the details of training programmes conducted, number of personnel trained and number of personnel not undergone any training shall be provided in the Annual Report;

(h) immunise all its health care workers and others, involved in handling of bio-medical waste for protection against diseases including Hepatitis B and Tetanus that are likely to be transmitted by handling of bio-medical waste, in the manner as prescribed in the National Immunisation Policy or the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued from time to time;

i) Establish a Bar- Code System for bags or containers containing bio-medical waste to be sent out of the premises or place for any purpose within one year from the date of the notification of these rules;

(j) Ensure segregation of liquid chemical waste at source and ensure pre-treatment or neutralisation prior to mixing with other effluent generated from health care facilities;

 (k) Ensure treatment and disposal of liquid waste in accordance with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974); 5

 (l) Ensure occupational safety of all its health care workers and others involved in handling of biomedical waste by providing appropriate and adequate personal protective equipments;

(m) Conduct health check up at the time of induction and at least once in a year for all its health care workers and others involved in handling of bio- medical waste and maintain the records for the same;

 (n) Maintain and update on day to day basis the bio-medical waste management register and display the monthly record on its website according to the bio-medical waste generated in terms of category and colour coding as specified in Schedule I;

(o) Report major accidents including accidents caused by fire hazards, blasts during handling of biomedical waste and the remedial action taken and the records relevant thereto, (including nil report) in Form I to the prescribed authority and also along with the annual report;

 (p) Make available the annual report on its web-site and all the health care facilities shall make own website within two years from the date of notification of these rules;

(q) Inform the prescribed authority immediately in case the operator of a facility does not collect the bio-medical waste within the intended time or as per the agreed time;

(r) Establish a system to review and monitor the activities related to bio-medical waste management, either through an existing committee or by forming a new committee and the Committee shall meet once in every six months and the record of the minutes of the meetings of this committee shall be submitted 

along with the annual report to the prescribed authority and the healthcare establishments having less than thirty beds shall designate a qualified person to review and monitor the activities relating to bio-medical waste management within that establishment and submit the annual report;

(s) Maintain all record for operation of incineration, hydro or autoclaving etc., for a period of five years;

 (t) Existing incinerators to achieve the standards for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste as specified in Schedule II for retention time in secondary chamber and Dioxin and Furans within two years from the date of this notification.

Doc negligence to be vetted against standard practice* Landmark judgement

*Doc negligence to be vetted against standard practice* Landmark judgement. Keep copy of it for ref.
May 30 2016 : The Times of India (Mumbai)

Jehangir B Gai


Medical science is not an exact science. There can be various reasons for failure of a treatment or surgery , which are beyond the control of the doctor. If a doctor has acted according to standard medical protocol he cannot be accused of negligence merely because some untoward incident has taken place due to circumstances beyond his control.

Sanghmitra Khobragade was suffering from abdominal pain. She went to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) at Nagpur and underwent sonography which revealed gall stones. She was referred to Dr Sanjay Gadekar for laparoscopic removal of stones.

Khobragade later filed a consumer complaint alleging that her consent was obtained on a blank form. The doctor then performed an open cholecystecto my instead of a laparoscopic surgery . She complained that despite oozing of yellowish fluid through the drain, she was discharged without being cured.

Khobragade subsequently developed jaundice for which GMCH asked her to contact a specialist. She was brought to Shrikhande Hospital in Mumbai where she underwent a major surgery of jejuno jejunostomy of the intestine. After an 8.5hour surgery she recovered and was discharged. She attributed that the obstructive jaundice was due to a wrong surgery by Dr Sanjay Gadekar and claimed a compensation of Rs 8.5 lakh for alleged negligence.

The state commission allowed the complaint and directed Dr Gadekar to pay Rs 8.5 lakh along with 9% interest and cost of Rs 25,000. The doctor challenged this order before the National Commission. The doctor relied on medical texts which showed that iatrogenic injuries occur inadvertently during certain medical procedures. In cholecystectomy , an incidence of over 85% iatrogenic injuries is noticed during follow-up. In such circumstances, it would not be right to attribute negligence on the part of the surgeon.

The doctor showed that consent had been properly obtained. The patient was in good condition at the time of discharge. The complication due to the iatrogenic injury was notice during follow up, for which Khobragade was advised to get herself admitted for corrective measures, but she had refused to get hospitalized again.

The National Commission observed that the patient was a qualified advocate. The doctor had obtained proper consent on the form which had been signed by Khobragade as well as her husband. The medical record showed there were no problems during the surgery . Extra hepatic biliary obstruction, which is a known complication of cholecystectomy , which was detected during follow up, but the patient had refused treatment.

The Commission observed that all medical injuries do not that all medical injuries do not arise due to negligence, and some complications occur due to blameless events. The Consumer Protection Act should not act as an “halter round the neck“ of doctors to make them fearful and apprehensive of taking professional decisions at crucial moments, which can make a difference to between life and death, it added.

ImpactConclusion: Accordingly , by the commision's order dated 20.5.2015 delivered by Dr S M Kantikar for the bench along with Justice J M Malik, the National Commission held that there was no negligence on Dr Gadekar's part.On the contrary Khobragade had failed to follow instruction for post operative complications. So the commission set aside the State Commission's order, and dismissed Khobragade's complaint.

A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct falls below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.

of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Pro tection. His email is jehangir.gai.co

This message is a forwarded from a what's up group,expecting it be authentic and publish here to help fellow colleagues. Courtesy unknown author.