IMA vs. QPMPA - Part 2 - IMA Letters in May 2010
Monday, 09 August 2010 14:50
The first letter dated 5.5.2010 from the PHB of IMA copied-
Though addressed to the members of the PHB, it was copied to all branch leaders for the information of all the IMA Members, that the "The IMA is fighting this vital issue without taxing the members", unlike the QPMPA, which has demanded money, from the members! (Read para two of the letter cited to get the hidden meaning.)
After getting this letter, the few QPMPA members who wanted to pay the QPMPA became wiser and decided to stop the payment as they are all fond of free services.
The second letter from the PHB dated 10.5.10 copied below-
This letter misinterpreted the "ONE SENTENCE" in Item 5 in Schedule K of the Drugs Act in a very effective way and proved that hospitals run on commercial basis must take Drug Licence, may be because all the IMA members are running hospitals on charity. We do not know who gave the IMA the right to do this act, reserved for the judiciary!
The letter informed the members that the IMA so vigilant in such matters have also filed the Drug Licence SLP 10.5.10 and the Advocate is Mr. V. Giri. The IMA took pains to visit the Drugs Controller and could obtain some breathing space till 31.7.2010 -- something to be appreciated by all.
Elated with all these achievements for the members of the profession
the PHB flashed the third letter dated 14.5.10 copied-
After submitting an incomplete case diary, the above letter informed the members of the IMA that the SLP filed will be heard only in the end of July as the Apex Court is on vacation. (Read the Court order dated 8.6.10. The petitioner mentioned is IMA.)
The authors of the above letter took pains to condemn the Drugs Department for something they have not done. In fact it was the IMA Kerala that has misinterpreted Item 5 in Schedule K as per their pleasure.
Some relevant points from the letter No. DL.16001/90/DC
dated 6 December 1990 from the Drugs Control Department--
Para 8 -- "The provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not in any way interfere with the medical profession. No restriction is imposed for any of the acts of the medical practitioners in the course of his practce of his profession...."
Para 10 -- "... This department is not concerned with the enforcement of Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. This administration has never directed any Registered Practitioner to appoint a pharmacist.... There is no intention of harassing the Medical practitioners. All that is contemplated in the enforcement of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as they apply to hospital. No registered medical Practitioner supplying drugs to his own patients is required to take out Drugs Licence. Licence is required in public interest and not to control the professional rights of medical Practitioners."
The IMA leaders who wrote the letter dated 14.5.10 were not aware of the findings of the Drugs Controller of 1990 who misinterpreted only Item 5A in Schedule K to impose Drug Licence on hospitals.
If the Drugs Controller misinterpreted Item 5 A of Schedule K in 1990, i.e., after 50 years of the enactment, the IMA Kerala totally disfigured and distorted Item 5 in Schedule K in 2010, after 70 years.
K. Kishore Kumar
Also see:
http://www.qpmpa.org/news-and-events/9-drug-licence-case/35-ima-vs-qpmpa--part-1--the-kickoff.html
http://www.qpmpa.org/news-and-events/9-drug-licence-case/37-ima-vs-qpmpa-part-3-minutes.html
http://www.qpmpa.org/news-and-events/9-drug-licence-case/38-ima-vs-qpmpa-part-4-emails.html