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
No comments:
Post a Comment