Expressing concern over implementing the Kerala Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act 2012 in its present form, various organisations representing the ayurvedic treatment sector in Kerala have unanimously passed a resolution demanding separate Clinical Establishment (CE) Act exclusively for ISM sector.
The government of Kerala has sought responses from various associations and other stakeholders of ayurveda and ISM hospitals for the purpose of modifying the draft bill of the Clinical Establishment Act prepared in line with the centrally enacted Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.
Various associations representing Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Yoga, Naturopathy and Homoeopathy have joined together to suggest changes and reforms to be included in the draft bill which was forwarded to the associations by the state health ministry. The platform for the meeting-cum-discussion was set up by the Ayurvedic Medical Manufacturers’ Organisation of India (AMMOI) and the Ayurvedic Hospital Management Association (AHMA) at Vaidyaratnam Oushadhasala in Thrissur. Members representing managements of 15 Ayurveda hospitals and associations participated.
The office-bearers – cum – doctors in the ISM field discussed the pros and cons of the subject and unanimously wanted a separate Clinical Establishment Act for ayurveda sector. They have also wanted the state government to frame separate guidelines and standard parameters for ayurvedic system.
AMMOI secretary Dr D Ramanathan has expressed concern about the change of the phrase ‘ a single doctor’ given in the centrally enacted CE Act 2010 to ‘individual proprietorship/ partnership’ in the Kerala CE Act. He wanted the phrase, a single doctor, should be retained in the state Act.
The general secretary of Ayurveda Medical Association of India (AMAI), Dr Rejith Anand said there is need to give equal priority or representation of ISM fraternity in the present Act. He said there should be separate sub council for Ayurveda and it should be specified in the Act. His further version is that the inspectors coming to the ISM clinics should be from the respective systems.
According to Dr Rejith, the set up of the state medical council to be formed on the lines of the Act is not a balanced one in respect of inclusion of members from modern and ayurvedic medical sides. Whereas it includes the DHS, DME and DC representing modern medicine, the corresponding number of officers from Ayush side is not included. The council comprises 14 members, out of this, seven members are from allopathic side and only one representative is from ISM which consists of Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Naturopathy and Homoeopathy.
AMAI also suggests that there should be three technical sub-committees each for modern medicine, ISM and Homoeopathy to advise on issues related to registration, denial of registration, suspension of registration etc. The association wanted to modify the Act by including the director of ISM, director of Homoeopathy and the ISM drugs controller into the executive committee.
All the physicians–cum–hospital owners were of the opinion that the Clinical Establishment Act should not affect the freedom of the private practising doctors.