Wednesday, August 19, 2015

All the President's men- A Fairy Tale

It is almost exactly 5 years since the Madras High Court ruled that the then President of DCI, Dr Anil Kohli's membership in DCI from Delhi was illegal. The then President of DCI resigned after his illegal membership in DCI was exposed through a Writ Petition filed by me. History now repeats itself. Dr Mazumdhar's nomination from a little known University in Jharkhand called Nilamber Pitamber University appears to be faulty just as the membership of 21 other members of the DCI ( for various other reasons). Here is the reason why Dr Mazumdhar is likely to be an illegal member.
1. To become member of the DCI under section 3(d) i.e Representative from University, one must be elected from amongst the Faculty of Dentistry of the University ( not teaching faculty).
2. While the Nilamber Pitamber University has an affiliated private dental college called Vananchal Dental College, it has no Faculty of Dentistry in the University. So the Nilamber Pitamber University cannot elect a member to DCI u/s 3(d).
3. Dr Mazumdar was made a honorary teaching faculty of Vananchal Dental College which is a private Dental College, in 2013 ( and it was kept a secret) despite he being a government servant of the Government of West Bengal. Either due to ignorance or by design the Nilamber Pitamber University has thought that being a member of the teaching staff of an affiliate dental college is the same as being a member of faculty of dentistry of a University. The two are quite different.
4. On May 31st 2015 Dr Mazumdhar who lost his membership to DCI from West Bengal ended up losing his Presidency of the DCI too, as they are co- terminus. He again stood for the post of president on June 11 th 2015 by claiming membership from Nilamber Pitamber University. He suddenly revealed his Hon. Professorship to claim membership under 3 (d). Based on this illegal membership he was elected by DCI members without opposition ( no one was allowed to oppose).
5. The question now is whether we have an illegal president Dr Mazumdhar and 21 members including the famous Ketan Desai in our statutory body. Dr Ketan Desai in fact found it convenient to enter DCI after being disallowed in the MCI. The reason why Dr Mazumdhar's Presidency is illegal is very simple. The Dentist Act does not allow membership from amongst faculty members of a private dental college ( which Dr Mazumdhar claims he is by honorary appointment). It only allows a person who is a member of a duly constituted faculty of Dentistry of a University who should thereafter be elected by a senate of the University. Nilamber Pitamber University by its own RTI admission does not have such a faculty with a fixed tenure and the election by senate was a farce. The member of an affiliated college's teaching faculty CANNOT be a legal member of DCI and therefore Dr Mazumdhar CANNOT  be president of DCI.
His membership and election as President will hopefully be challenged.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Nirbhaya- The story of a nameless martyr!

It is impossible to not have moist eyes after viewing the Chanel 4 BBC documentary ‘India’s Daughter’.  The movie had the desired effect - a sordid revulsion against the heinous things man is capable of! It is the touching story of the young girl and her parents who suffered so that India will be shocked into action. A story has different voices. I see the interview with the rapist as part of a narrative that exposes the dark side of society- not as a platform for justification. Unfortunately, a large section (mostly males) have seen it as being anti national. Somewhere, we have missed the wood for the trees!
My daughter, who is the same age as the unfortunate victim of the gruesome rape in 2012, called me up on the same day the documentary was released to express her angst at the move to ban or restrict the showing of the visual drama. As a woman and a lawyer my daughter should know better than those who wish to hide the story of a young girl in a city- not different from her background. At the end of the documentary, the father reveals with candor the name of his daughter while the rest of the country still goes on with the charade of a pseudonym that is meaningless to the family or her memory. Why are the government and a segment of the media so concerned about the revelation of her identity, when her own parents want to honor her life and death so that others will not suffer? In fact this ostrich like attitude of our leaders and our media is the reason why we cannot confront our demons. I purposefully said ‘our demons’ because, in one of the interviews in the documentary, Gopal Subramaniam, the former Solicitor General,  explains how the women who testified before the Justice Verma commission said in unison that “the perpetrators are our people”. This is the bitter truth. The justification of Mukesh Singh, one of the rapists, can at best be the narrow vision of a closed society that veils and mistreats its women in the name of ‘Indian Culture’. I can see where that opinion is coming from- Ignorance, deprivation, poverty and a system that objectifies women as commodities! What I cannot forgive is the attitude of the defense lawyers. Granted, it was their duty to defend their clients. But what they revealed to the camera is the twisted mind of a patriarchal society that has reduced women to mere decorations.  One of them called ML Sharma in almost poetic cadence describes women with ‘flowery’ metaphors and predicts their fate on their literal use- worshiped in the temple and crushed in a gutter! He therefore prescribes a curfew of 6.30 PM for women to ensure that the men will be ‘good’. His lawyer colleague A P Singh brazenly says on camera that he would burn to death the female members of his family if they misbehaved.  It is unfortunately the mindset of a large number of our people including leaders and religious heads who have said it without fear on our television channels before. It is important that these devious opinions come out into the open- not hide them from the world in the name of ‘Indian pride’.  So, why are we so scared to look at the blemishes on our social mirror?  This documentary revelation should help us understand the lurking dangers even within our so called educated class so that we can protect our women. Closing our ears to the rabid voices of some of our own, is not the answer.
I was shocked to hear Meenakshi Lekhi, BJP MP, on TV saying that her concern was the ‘Image of India’. For a country that has a rape happening every 20 minutes we are concerned about what others think about us, not what we do to ourselves! That is the problem with a certain kind of nationalism founded on pride and past glory and espoused by certain political parties. The argument that this happens in other parts of the world is true, but it is a tepid excuse to ban a documentary that delves into the heart of our hypocrisy.
The transparency of the Nuremberg trials in post war Germany, exposed the genocide by the Nazi leadership. Herman Goering and Rudolf Hess were given a chance justify their actions of killing a million Jews and telecasted it to the world on news reels! It was important that the world knew of such monsters. More importantly it was important that Germany knew what happened to its citizens in that horrific period. Nobody was shamed in the process! I hope this documentary does the same and……. Give her back her name!
George Paul
March 2015

Friday, September 5, 2014

Do our Dental Teachers need protection?

These are trying times for teachers in dental colleges. Before this column goes to press the right to personal liberty (Article 21 of the constitution) of a highly respected dental teacher would have been decided in a High Court. Until then he will remain under judicial custody for an alleged crime of pulling up a student for indiscipline (1).  Can the heads of institutions take criminal responsibility for the unfortunate death of a student who commits suicide because legitimate disciplinary action was taken against the person for violation of the college rules? The tragic death of a young student is painful but can a teacher take the rap for their emotional reaction to a legitimate action? Several High Court and Supreme Court verdicts have laid down norms against police harassment in these situations (2) (3) (4) (5). There are of course instances of genuine  harassment and we will need to leave the matter to the Courts of Law to decide.
Teachers in Dental Colleges are also facing an intense crisis with job security. In many ways it is our own doing. In the last 15 years, particularly the decade between 2001 and 2010, has seen a proliferation of dental colleges and increase in seats far beyond the manpower requirements in the country. Some states like Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra have a dentist to patient ratio which has caused enormous unemployment in the profession. In the initial stages this proliferation of dental colleges  was a huge bonanza for dental postgraduates due to the teaching jobs in the market . I remember many teachers defended this abnormal proliferation.  Growth has a way of subsuming its own existence by shifting demand and supply. These Colleges soon turned out more post graduate dentists, who in turn returned to compete for teaching jobs. The large number of unemployed teachers created through this growth is now threatening the existence of the old teachers in a wage war of plummeting salaries. Now private managements are happy to hire and fire at will, offering pathetic salaries based on market demands. Post graduates cannot find jobs in dental colleges, unless of course more dental colleges are started. This is fortunately not going to happen! In Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, it is predicted that by 2020, 80% of OMF surgeons will not have teaching jobs at the rate at which post graduates are being churned out(6)
The third major area of discomfort is for teachers in administration as Deans and HODs. Many private managements have violated statutory provisions related to entrance examinations, eligibility criteria and excess admissions for monetary purposes (7). Heads of institutions sometimes have to face the wrath of students affected by these decisions. In some instances the Principals and HODs have also been subjected to enquiries by investigative agencies for decisions taken by unscrupulous managements (8). The staff are usually fall guys who have no option but to obey their paymasters!
It is needless to say that in some extreme cases teachers mutely accept non -payment of salaries for several months. This has caused enormous financial and social strains in the job environment.
The solution to this can only come through a broad unionization of teaching faculty to protect their interests. The Dental Council should also lay down service rules in the interest of teachers. A teacher’s organization will have to:
1.       To stand up for innocent teachers in the event of unfair actions against them.
2.       To protect the salaries of incumbent teachers by creating a national salary structure for all levels of teaching staff and thus prevent under payment of staff
3.       To create service conditions that ensures job security and prevent arbitrary firing of teachers on specious grounds
4.       To ensure that payment and perks are received by the staff in accordance with service conditions.
In the absence of a system to protect the interests of staff, dental college teachers may have to face an undignified future!

2.       Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh [2001(9) SCC 618
3.       S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190]
4.      State of Gujarat Vs. Sunilkumar Kanaiyalal Jain (1997 Crl.L.J.2014)
5.       Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi),
AIR 2010 SC 1446
6.       George Paul, The Future of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, MSN Ginwalla Oration delivered at AOMSI National Conference, Hyderabad November 2012

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Why was the BDS course duration increased in 2007?

Have you wondered why there is so much time taken up in the electronic media about Delhi University’s Four Year Undergraduate Course (FYUC)?  The motives maybe dubbed as dubious if the only reason was because the American Universities do so. I am not suggesting that the DU’s decision was unfounded as I do not know if there were other reasons, valid or not,  behind the move. I am only saying that mimicking ‘foreign’ Universities is not a great idea because our needs and resources can be different.
In 2007/2008 the Dental Council came along with a similar hare brained idea. It was ridiculous because the unilateral decision by the Dental Council to increase the course duration from a four to five year course was justified on the same grounds- International standards. It could have been justified if it was not done at the expense of the one year Internship. The Internship in medical courses in India provide for ‘on patient’ training under supervision. It also provides for some autonomy in decision making in the bridge between being a student and an independent practitioner. In short the decision to scrap internship and increase the duration of the course was in complete variance with all the medical courses in India.  The reasons for the increase of the course duration from 4 years to 5 years was justified by the then DCI as
1.       The Americans do not have internship
2.       It provides more time for study
3.       Training (Internship) is not necessary because students are anyway exposed to patients during the course
4.       Students will not attend internship!!!
5.       Private managements will be financially benefitted!!( The DCI secretary actually sent out a memo to that effect and it is attached)
The only acceptable reason to any rational person is the last one- more money in tuition fees for the private managements. Several of them did charge a 5 year fee for the course which was eventually decreased to four years! More importantly the Colleges will not need to pay the compulsory internship (which many of them still do not pay). A rough calculation for a college with 100 seats charging 2 lakhs per year as fees would be 2 crores a year. Add to this the benefit from not paying the compulsory stipend (which I have fixed at a conservative Rs3000/ a month). The saving for private managements would be a saving of approximately 36 lakhs a year. A financial gain of approximately 2.5 crores a college is no small profit. This involved at least 250 colleges (excluding the Government Colleges) in the country. Something worthy to lobby for! You do the math and see how many crores would have accrued to private managements each year! The question therefore is why did the DCI make such a move and try to stifle the objections raised by several of us? The move was staunchly promoted by the then President, Vice President and some members- significantly a DCI member from Kerala who was in the fore-front of its promotion. There are several reasons why we can pick holes in the rationale of mimicking the US Universities. One of them is that the 4 year US dental courses are done after a four year pre-med graduate degree. It is true that there is no formal internship but the US has a statutory licensing examination before they can practice in any state. Without any of these safe guards, just scrapping internship would have been dangerous to the public. Imagine sending college fresh graduates on to the general population. One senior DCI proponent of the course who was also dean of a dental college said it would enable American Dental Association accreditation. His college was trying for accreditation. It is these kind of personal agendas that hijack our teaching and training!!
Fortunately, a new President was elected and the decision was reversed without causing too much harm to the students. This could have been done in DU too, with a little mediation and planning. Regarding what happened in the DCI, nothing short of a full fledged investigation will reveal the motives behind the attempted move by the previous President and his men. Some skeletons may actually spill out of the ancient cupboard!!

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The Clinical Establishment Act- How will it affect the practising dentist

The Clinical Establishment Act 2010 became effective in Feb 2012 through an extraordinary gazette notification and is today applicable in 4 states with at least three more poised to adopt the same. There is no doubt that this is a landmark legislation which very few people in the dental profession noticed. One of the reasons is that, dentistry as an important clinical branch of health care has been grossly under represented. The DCI has represented the meeting of the national Council in two of its four meetings through its secretary. The minutes of the meetings are available on the website of the body ( 1). Scanning through the minutes it is surprising to see that while all the branches have strongly voiced their opinions, dentistry has not spoken out a single sentence (as per the recorded minutes).  It must be said that the National Council has made an exhaustive list of the regulations required for starting and running of clinics. In fact the requirement for a dental clinic is rather well formatted. It is divided into Dental Center for a single dentist practice and a Dental Hospital for those with inpatient facility. The Dental Hospital requirements are a little difficult to fulfill- at least for the new practitioner starting in a metro city! Dr Anmol Kalha is the member from the Dental Profession and we hope that dentistry is well spoken for. The State Council will be the implementing authority through its district officers. The District registering committee will be nominated by the Collector and will have three members including a senior police officer and a representative from the profession. It is at this level that one can expect problems if any for the practicing dentist. The inspectors are nominated by the District authority.
Since most of the States have yet to adopt the Act, it may be some time before all dentists face the nuts and bolts of regulation. We sincerely hope that it will not be a source of harassment for an already struggling profession. On the other hand regulating practice may eliminate quackery to a large extent. More importantly it will ensure safety for the public.
I thought I will touch upon a few of the requirements and comment on them so that eminent persons who will eventually represent us will be able to get an idea about how laws are likely to affect the common dental practitioner. I was recently told by someone that impossible guidelines like an OPG in every clinic etc were suggested. On reading the clinical requirements, it is clear that these were exaggerations. It is titled as Standard No CEA/ Dental Hospital-38 and 39 for Dental Hospitals and Dental Centers respectively. This is unusual because the Code of Ethics Regulation prevents Dental Clinics from being called Hospitals. That may change because the new code of Ethics is almost ready as per information from the DCI.
In any case the new requirements will cover all dental clinics including single person run establishments and exceptions are only for the armed forces. The format available on the website (2) is comprehensive and covers all specialties. The norms for infection control, cleanliness and safety (including bio and radiation safety) are quite rational and practical. However there appears to be some need for pragmatism in the space requirements. It says that for Dental Hospitals 30% of carpet area should be reception and circulation. 30% of carpet area for one Chair is expected to be 6 sq meters of carpet space (i.e 18x18= 324 Sq Ft). In addition 30% carpet area should be for ancillary purposes including sterilization, toilet etc. This means that a clinic should have a minimum of 1000 Sq Ft for one chair. For every extra chair there must be an additional 60% or 600 Sq Ft. I will leave it to the reader to decide if this is practical in a city like Mumbai. It does not say where the patients will be admitted. On the other hand Dental Centers need only 60 Sq Ft for a chair and 35 Sq feet for reception etc. The 60Sq ft will be a little tight if a patient needs to be shifted after a syncope. I do not understand why one needs 5 times more space around a chair in the hospital category! There are several other small glitches including a number of inspections for bio safety, lift safety, drug expiry etc. While I think it is necessary, I am not sure how many dentists will be comfortable with buying Oxygen and other gases and all monitoring systems and equipment. Another difficult task will be the employment of ‘qualified’ assistance (diploma recognized by state dental council) and providing minimum wages according to the labor laws. Some requirements like waste disposal etc are definitely important. Some others may need tinkering. Some other requirements may worry dentists and doctors. One is expected to put a price list for procedures for patients to see and the rates are decided by the competent authority, not the dentist. I am not sure if this will work for health care.
My biggest issue with the construct of the legislation is the absence of the IDA inputs, whereas the IMA, Ayurveda, Unnani, Yoga and Homeopathy associations (not just councils) are very well represented. How in the world are they going to implement ground level regulation without technical inputs from the dental profession- particularly practicing dentists!
While you chew on that information, you can go to the very informative website and troll through all the sections at

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Open Letter to the President and Members of DCI

Dear Sirs/ Madams,
We are informed that the DCI is preparing to conduct its General Body Meeting on Friday the 13th of June! As practicing dentists we have several concerns. We have personally raised these issues in the past as well and would like you to once again look into it.
1.       Following our persistent objections the slew of new dental colleges has thankfully ceased or at least decreased dramatically. We however note with some alarm that a backdoor mechanism is in function. The seats in the existing dental colleges are being increased. Several Dental Colleges have applied for doubling of existing seats. I wonder if you realize that the reason for asking for moratorium on new dental colleges was based on the fact that there are too many dentists in ratio to population. By increasing the seats in existing colleges, the problem persists. It might even be said that this amounts to favoring existing dental colleges who benefit from this. The Health Ministry and the recommending body (The DCI) must call for a complete moratorium on the number of dentists graduating. The Dentist to population ratio has already been highlighted and the increase of seats must be based only on the manpower resources required. The State Governments, Central Government and the DCI have completely ignored this issue in giving ‘essentiality’ and ‘No Objection’ certificates. This is true for Government and Private Dental Colleges.
2.       There must be a complete review of all dental colleges by an independent body similar to the Anil Dev Singh Commission and a complete weeding out of improperly functioning institutions must be effected. In fact the Ministry of Health can undertake an exercise similar to the Flexner Committee report in the early 1900’s in the USA where medical education was rationalized and almost 50% of existing medical institutions were shut down or merged. The existing DCI inspections are unlikely to fulfill such a drastic exercise. Where is the Anil Dev Commission report (2004) by the way? An RTI by one of us indicates the Health Ministry does not even posses a copy of it after spending crores of rupees!!
3.       We understand that several institutions are scheduled for getting PG seats (new or increased). As per procedure the DCI has to recommend the names of these institutions to the Health Ministry for them to grant permission. However, we understand that the word ‘Council’ as defined in Section 3 of the Dentist’s Act 1948 refers to all categories of members in the General Body (GB) of the DCI. The powers and responsibilities of the EC are mentioned in several sections of the DCI separately and distinctly from that of the ‘Council’. They obviously cannot be interpreted as the same.  We have learnt that the recommendations under item no 8 of the agenda for this meeting seeks to approve new courses or seats in various institutions. The recommendations for these institutions were sent by the EC (not Council) to the Health ministry.  Do the 5 or 6 persons in the EC represent the will of the whole Council? The Health Ministry has apparently given permission based on this questionable reference. The ratification by the GB therefore appears to be a mere formality and is obviously ‘post facto’. We see a major procedural lapse in this sequence. The GB ratification appears to be eyewash and the whole exercise raises questions on the enormous powers being asserted by the handful of persons in the EC. We request the DCI to rethink on the recommendation particularly because there are institutions in this list who are under investigation for precisely the same issue- grant of PG. How did they get the permission now?
We need greater transparency in the functioning of regulatory bodies! The role of the GB has been reduced to a superfluous one. Justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done!
George Paul- Salem
V. Viswanathan- Calicut
Murali Venkataswami- Chennai
Varghese Mani- Thrissur
Raveendranath M- Kannur

CC- To Hon Minister of Health and Family Welfare