IMA vs. QPMPA - Part 3 - Minutes
Monday, 09 August 2010 14:55
The precious Minutes that saved IMA Doctors
If taken seriously, the QPMPA members in IMA are outlaws!
Dear Members,
We must be proud of this great achievement or say "BREAK THROUGH" by the IMA for saving all Registered Medical Practitoners, both Single and Couples. In fact the IMA have expanded the word "a registered medical practitioner" in Item 5 of Schedule K from a single doctor to a couple!
The minutes cited (kindly note that it is not a Government Order) says, "Drugs Licenses are not insisted for clinics/hospitals OWED and maintained by a single medical practitioner or hospitals owned and maintained by husband and wife only as long as provisions of exemption as per clause 5 of schedule K is complied with..."
That means, as far as I can understand, if you are maintaining a hospital with a boy/girl friend, though they are registered medical practitioners, you are not eligible for the exemption! That may also be true when the products of a husband and wife - children - join the institution!
We must be proud of our IMA Leaders for finding new horizons for an innocent looking sentence in Item 5 of Schedule K of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Now we must display the marriage certificate and wedding photo in all hospitals owned by Couples, to prove things required by our masters!
Hope the Health Secretary will authorise the Drugs Department to check that also. Let us wait and watch how the word "OWED" in the Minutes will be interpreted by the masters!
The last sentence in the minutes established that hospitals must take licence as per rules and no one knows the Rules.
A close reading will prove that the IMA wanted it that way and got it.
Soon our IMA leaders found out that the truth is different
than what they are made to believe.
The letter copied here will prove that.
Also visit for other IMA achievements:
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/38-ima-vs-qpmpa-part-4-emails.html