CEA

Letter to up principal health SecINDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
(Registered under Societies Act XXI of 1860)
UP STATE BRANCH (Session 2017-18)
State Office: IMA UP STATE, A-512, Lajpat Nagar, Rampur Road, Moradabad 244001 Phone: 0591-2493666 E-mail: imaupstate16@gmail.com Website: http://www.imaup.in
1
Dr. Sudhir Dhakre President
21 Moti Bagh,
Dayal Bagh, Agra-2820055
MOB- 9837029529
Email: sdhakre9@gmail.com
Date; 29-01-2018
To
The Principal Secretary Health Govt. of U.P.
Subject: Change the CEA 2010 in U.P. State Respected Sir,
Dr. Rajesh Singh
Hony. State Secretary
Neuromed Diagnostic & Sparsh IVF Clinic, A-107,Lajpat Nagar,Opp.Kathgarh Kotwali Moradabad-244001
MOB- 9719110234, 8881046144
Email: rajpoonam8@gmail.com
The IMA UP State have been requesting to the government of Uttar Pradesh to amend the Clinical Establishment Act 2010 for many years, but our request is not yet considered. The members of IMA UP state just cannot accept the CEA in its present form because it is not practical for our state as infrastructure is not available in our state to implement it. Many of the medical establishment and clinics will close down especially in rural areas if it is implemented in present form, and ultimately the people of U.P. will suffer. If the CEA is implemented in present form in U.P., the healthcare system to U.P. may collapse.
The CEA 2010 which was approved by assembly of U.P. need to be discarded as the ground is not yet ready in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The IMA UP State is willing to participate in drafting a new act for state of U.P. in such a manner that it could be an example for all states. The CEA, which even after 7 years, is implemented only in few states and UTs only and till date only few thousand clinical establishments are registered under it all over India. The central govt. has not yet been able to formulate various standards and rules to implement it even after so many years. The GOI and WHO accepts that there is shortage of doctors and paramedical personals in our country, then how a clinical establishment will fulfill the requirements under this act? Is it not raising the question about the practicality of its implementation in our country and especially in state like Uttar Pradesh?
The following are the major objections of IMA UP State in the CEA 2010.
1. Section 8 about structure of state council, in present form the majority is tilted towards govt. officials and other sections of healthcare system, while the representation of modern medicine is very less though they are the major stake holder in healthcare system in India. Thus it should be amended as follows.
Advisor to President – Dr. Sanjay Jain, gzbsjain@gmail.com 9810138397

Section 8 (2) F – Instead of one representative of Indian Medical association it should have three representative of IMA UP State.
2. Section 10 mention about the structure of District Registering authority which also need amendments. The Chairperson of DRA should be Chief Medical Officer only, and the District Magistrate and S.S.P. should not be the part of DRA, as he is already overburdened. Besides this the CMO is competent and most apt person for it. The DRA should also contain the adequate number of members from doctors of modern medicine and their associations as they are the major stake holder in health care system.
3. A new section need to be introduced before section 11. Which may read as follows.
The clinics, diagnostic centers and the hospitals and Nursing homes having less than fifty (50) beds shall be exempted from this act and shall not be required to register under this act.
4. Section 12 about emergency medical care should be amended as follows.
Section 12 (2) – The clinical establishment shall provide first aid services to any emergency patient coming to its center which are within the scope of staff and facilities available. The clinical establishment shall provide such medical examination and treatment as may be possible at that clinical establishment for that emergency medical condition of any individual who comes or is brought to such clinical establishment. However the cost of such treatment shall be borne by the individual as the case may be.
5. Section 26 – Objections from public. This provision will create unnecessary harassment of medical fraternity by people with vested interests. This requisite should be abolished.
Thus section 26 and 27 should be totally removed.
6. There should not be any provision to formulate the treatment guidelines and regulate the treatment cost for the clinical establishments by government, as medical professional are already covered under consumer protection act, thus let the market force decide the cost of medical services. Besides this, it should not be the government domain to decide the medical science and services, let the expert of this field do their job.
7. The various requirements for the infrastructure and paramedical staff need to be worked out as per the situation and ground realities in our state.
I hope that government of U.P. will consider the request of members of IMA UP state and take decision for betterment of people of U.P.
Regards
Dr. Sudhir Dhakre President
IMA UP State
CC to 1. Chief Minister of U.P 2. Health Minister of U.P.
3. Chief Secretary of U.P.
2
Advisor to President – Dr. Sanjay Jain, gzbsjain@gmail.com 9810138397

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: