Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Thalassemic student to wait longer for MBBS seat as University challenges HC order

23 June: Candidate cleared the NEET exam
06 July: Name included in PwD Category
16 July: Status of the candidate changed from the general category to PwD category
23 July: Participated in the first round of counseling
12 Aug: Participated in the second round of counseling (Still, his name did not appear)
18 Aug: SC granted MBBS admission to Sruchi Rathore, a similarly placed candidate with thalassemia, without subjecting to counseling
26 Aug: Petition filed in Delhi High Court
27 Aug: Participated in the third round of counseling (Mop Up round) 
31 Aug: Last date of counseling as per SC order
19 Sept: Judgment delivered to grant him MBBS seat in any of the three colleges of IP Univ.

TOI News dated 24 Oct 2017

NEW DELHI: For an 18-year-old suffering from thalassaemia, a September 19 Delhi high court judgment was no less than a blessing. After all, his struggle to secure admission to an MBBS course in any of the three colleges of Indraprashta University had finally been given legal sanctity.

But to his shock, the university chose to challenge the order before a larger bench. The student's father says the struggle is far from over even though his son's medical condition has been recognised under a law that safeguards the rights of disabled people.

The law he is referring to here is the newly notified Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which now includes 21 disabilities (including thalassaemia) as opposed to seven in the earlier Act. The new law, which has also increased the reservation of seats for people with disability from 3% to 5%, was notified on April 19, 2017.

In March 2017, the student had applied for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) under the general category. On realising that the new Act including the blood disorder as a disability had been notified, the student made a representation to change his category from general to people with disabilities (PwD) before the university on July 5 — after his NEET result was out.

He sat for two consecutive counselling sessions — on July 23 and August 12. "If he had not made it in the first round itself, why was he allowed to sit for a second round of counselling?" he asks.

HC judge Indermeet Kaur, had in the judgment, recorded that IP University's argument — that on August 9, 2017, it had notified that all seats that had remained vacant in the PwD or physically handicapped category were reverted to the parent category — did not hold water. "The status of the PWD/PH category had not changed. The additional affidavit of respondent No. 1 (IP University) reflecting the status of seats in their medical colleges on August 12 reflected no category of PWD/PH. Why and how was the petitioner permitted participation in this counselling when there was no such category available with them, is not answered," the judgment states.

And despite his win before the single judge, the youngster is now anxious about the division bench's judgment slated to come out on November 9.

As a disability rights activist points out, this is the first case from Delhi where a thalassaemic is trying to secure admission to an MBBS course under the disability quota. "It can set a precedent, if he is given admission," says Dr Satendra Singh, a doctor with disability at University College of Medical Sciences and a disability rights activist .

Singh claims none of the MCI committees have doctors with disabilities. "I have myself petitioned the ministry of social justice and empowerment regarding this. One of the past secretaries of department of empowerment of PwD was a medical doctor, but there has been no action. The MCI's outdated curriculum treats disability as a purely medical issue, instead of a human rights issue," he asserts.

The student's father, on the other hand, believes that if aspiring medical practitioners like his son are encouraged, they could treat patients with similar disorders in a better manner as they recognise the same hardships.

While the IP university's joint registrar Dr Nitin Malik chose to not comment on the issue, saying it was sub-judice, MCI joint secretary Dr Rajendra Wabale referred to the process of regulation of admissions under the PwD category, saying a disability committee was set up and was scheduled to submit a related report before an executive committee on Wednesday.

"The report will then go to the general body," he said, suggesting that only then a decision on such admissions would be taken. Wabale, however, chose not to comment on the student's case, saying it was sub-judice.


#Thalassemia #DisabilityAct 

Sunday, April 30, 2017

UP Minister Could Become First to Be Tried Under New Disability Law

A complaint against a minister in the Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh, who had publicly ridiculed a disabled employee during a surprise visit to an office in Lucknow, could become the first to be covered by the new disability law, which came into effect on Thursday (April 20).

Delhi-based disability rights activist Satendra Singh filed the case under Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
  “...whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view” shall be “punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine”.

Singh also pointed out that the incident occurred in Lucknow in the same month when a person with disability was elected president in another country. Lenin Moreno, who is a wheelchair user, was elected president of Ecuador on April 2. 

Read the full report at The Wire here.

Another report by TOI

New Disability Law: Doctor files case against UP Minister

NEW DELHI: A Delhi University doctor associated with the University College of Medical Science (UCMS) on Thursday filed the first case under the new disability law against Uttar Pradesh minister of khadi and village industries, Satyadev Pachauri for publicly ridiculing a disabled employee.

Dr Satendra Singh lodged a complaint with the state commissioner for persons with disabilities in Lucknow, under Section 92 (a) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016. In his complaint, Singh, a disability rights activist, alleged that Pachauri humiliated a Class IV employee during his visit to an office in Lucknow on April 19.    


According to Singh, "Section 92 (a) of the Disability Act states that anyone who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with fine."
In his complaint, Singh attached five media reports, including visual links from private news channels about the incident. "The minister ridiculed the entire (disabled) community, and as a disabled person and a resident of Uttar Pradesh, I am pursuing this case," said Singh.

On whether action can be taken on the minister under the new disability law, Singh didn't sound too optimistic. "As I said earlier, we will have to see what this new law has to offer. We all know it's a paper tiger," he added.

Pachauri, during his visit to the Khadi and Village Industries Board office in Lucknow on April 19 found that over one-third of the employees were absent. After ordering a day's salary cut, he started counting the number of staffers present.

While taking count of the employees, he questioned a disabled Class IV staff whether he was a permanent employee. When the disabled employee told Pachauri that he was a contractual staffer, the minister turned towards the chief executive officer and said: "Lulay langdon ko samvida par rakh liya hai, yeh kya kaam karega." (You have kept those suffering from disability of the limbs on contract, what work will he do).

Times of India: 23 April 2017

Saturday, April 15, 2017

'दिव्यांगों के अधिकार' से जुडे़ कानून के नियमों पर विवाद

पीएम नरेंद्र मोदी ने दिव्यांगों को उनका सम्मान और गरिमा देने के मकसद से संसद के पिछले शीतकालीन सत्र में आनन फानन में 'दिव्यांगों के अधिकार' से जुड़ा बिल पास करा कर उसके कानून की शक्ल तो दे दी, लेकिन जब उसकी कानून के नियमों को बनाने की बात आई तो उसमें ऐसे नियमों काे रखा जा रहा है, जो दिव्यांगों की मदद करने की बजाय उनके लिए अवरोध की वजह बन सकते हैं। जिसे लेकर दिव्यांगों से जुड़े तमाम स्टेक होल्डर्स के बीच से विरोध हो रहा है। हालांकि, विरोध के बाद हाल ही में इसके एक नियम में बदलाव किया।
उल्लेखनीय है कि गत 10 मार्च को सरकार ने इस कानून से जुडे़ नियमों का ड्राफ्ट पब्लिक डोमेन में डालकर आम जनता व स्टेक होल्डर्स के बीच रायशुमारी की कवायद की। एक महीने के भीतर लोगों को अपनी राय देनी थी। लेकिन इन नियमों के ड्राफ्ट को लेकर कई पक्षों से विरोध व आपत्तियां सामने आने लगीं। इन ड्राफ्ट में जिन तीन मुद्दों पर खासा विरोध और विवाद है, वह कानून की नियम 3(3) को लेकर है, जो दिव्यांगों के साथ होने वाले भेदभाव से जुड़ा है।
अधिकार से जुडा़ कानून कहता है कि किसी भी दिव्यांग के साथ दिव्यांगता को लेकर भेदभाव नहीं किया जा सकता, लेकिन इस धारा में कहा गया है कि कानूनी या उचित मकसद का हवाला देकर दिव्यांग काे किसी अधिकार या सुविधा से मना भी किया जा सकता है। नियमों में जुड़े ड्राफ्ट में इस धारा में सिर्फ सरकार को शामिल किया गया था, जबकि प्राइवेट को इससे बाहर रखा गया था। इसी मुद्दे को लेकर स्टेक होल्डर्स की ओर से खासा विरोध हुआ। उनका कहना था कि यह दिव्यांगों के साथ भेदभाव या सुविधा से जुड़ा मुद्दा सिर्फ सरकार से जुड़ा ही नहीं होना चाहिए, प्राइवेट संस्थानों में इसे लागू होना चाहिए। दरअसल, स्टेक होल्डर्स का मानना है कि इससे कहीं न कहीं प्राइवेट पक्षों को बचने का रास्ता मिलता है।
उल्लेखनीय है कि इस कानून के बनने के बाद सामाजिक अधिकारिता मंत्रालय ने कानून के नियमों को बनाने के लिए मंत्रालय के सीनियर अधिकारी की अध्यक्षता में एक चार सदस्यीय कमिटी का गठन किया था। इसी कमिटी ने ने कानून से नियमों का ड्राफ्ट तैयार किया। जिसे रायशुमारी के लिए पब्लिक डोमेन में डाला गया था। सूत्रों के मुताबिक, इसके नियम 3(3) को लेकर सामने आए विरोध व विवाद के बाद कमिटि ने इसमें बदलाव करते हुए इस नियम में प्राइवेट संस्थानों को शामिल कर लिया। गुरुवार को कमिटि की हुई मीटिंग में यह फैसला लिया गया।
इस नियमों में पक्षकारों और दिव्यांगों के अधकारों के लिए काम कर रही संस्थाओं की आपत्ति दिव्यांगों की सहज पहुंच या एक्सेसिबिलिटी से जुड़े नियम को लेकर भी है। नियम में कहा गया है कि किसी भी बिल्डिंग को बनाते समय दिव्यांगों की सुविधा का ख्याल रखते समय बिल्डिंग बाइलाॅज की गाइडलाइन काे आधार माना जाए। जबकि दिव्यांगों के लिए काम कर रहे लोगों को कहना है कि बिल्डिंग बाइलाॅज की गाइडलाइन नैशनल बिल्डिंग कोड के स्टैंडर्ड को माना जाए। इन लोगों का तर्क है कि हर राज्य में बिल्डिंग बाइलाॅज अलग-अलग हो सकते हैं, लेकिन नैशनल बिल्डिंग कोड एक ही होगा। इस बारे में जीटीबी हॉस्पिटल के असोसिएट प्रफेसर डॉ सतेंद्र सिंह का कहना था कि इस अाधार पर विकलांगो के हितों को बेहतर तरीके से देखा जा सकता है।
इतना ही नहीं तमाम पक्षकारों का मानना है कि दिव्यांगता विभाग के चीफ कमिश्नर को स्वायत्त शक्तियां दी जाएं। दरअसल, कानून में उसे अडवाइजरी पावर दी गई हैं। इन लोगों का मानना है कि चीफ कमिश्नर के साथ अडवाइजरी पावर का लेबल चिपका कर उसे एक कागजी शेर बना दिया गया है।

~ मंजरी चतुर्वेदी, नवभारत टाइम्स १५ अप्रैल २०१७

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Activists slams discriminatory clause in new Disability Act

The Wire reports that the contentious clause allows establishments to discriminate against persons with disabilities if there is a “legitimate aim”.

Even before it has been implemented, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2016, which was notified by the parliament in the winter session, has run into a major controversy with the primary stakeholders – persons with disabilities – questioning the clause that allows establishments to discriminate against them provided there is a “legitimate aim” and for taking the private sector out of the purview of the Act. Moreover, while the Centre had promised to address the issue while framing the rules under the Act, the same has not been reflected in the draft rules circulated earlier this month.
Read the complete story here.

Activists express concern over gaping loopholes in RPwD Rules

    Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017

Source: The Pioneer 11 April 2017

Sunday, February 26, 2017

No Rehabilitation Medicine specialist (Physiatrist) HoD in PGI Chandigarh since 2009

 No Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (Physiatrist) specialist HoD in PGI Chandigarh since 2009

If you have suffered from a stroke and need proper rehabilitation, PGI is not your place of care, as there is no physical medicine and medical rehabilitation specialist (PMR)­ HoD physiatrist since 2009. There is an orthopaedician instead. What kind of wheelchair or braces is required can only be recommended by a physiatrist, say experts.

 In fact, the institute had placed an advertisement for the post of professor in the PMR department on April 24 last year and changed the recruitment rules. These rules allowed orthopaedicians with less experience in PMR to join.The recruitment rules were changed after four months on August 6 and the advertisement was withdrawn subsequently .

PGI is not only disabled-unfriendly institute, the rehabilitation services for the disabled has been compromised with new recruitment rules which were accepted in 2016. “There are few physiatrists with requisite experience required all over the country . I had applied for the post of the professor and despite the fact that there was no other such specialists who had over 14 years of experience as I had, the post was left vacant,“ said professor V S Gogia, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.

As per the MCI and the UPSC rules (a copy of which is with the TOI), which the AIIMS follows, priority is given to a physiatrist with an experience of 14 years. However, if the specialist is not available, MD in surgery , orthopaedics or medicine may apply with same years of experience in PMR. The PGI's new advertisement has relaxed six years for non PMR, while for a qualified PMR, the experience remains 14 years for the post of professor.

Recently , a health activist based in New Delhi, Dr Satendra Singh, had been invited by the Ministry of health and family welfare (GNCTD) after he proposed setting up of a department of physical medicine and medical rehabilitation in all government colleges in Delhi. “The institute in its advertisement has equated physiotherapist with a PMR. The recruitment rules have been reshaped, which is against MCI norms and smacks of vested interests,“ said Dr Satendra. However, PGI officiating director Dr Subash Varma said, “These recruitment rules have been changed before I occupied this post. Even AIIMS has the same rules as we have."
Times of India, Chandigarh, 16 Feb 2017

Following my Facebook post where I wrote an open letter to Health Minister on the neglect of Rehabilitation services in the PGI Chandigarh, TOI Chandigarh carried the above story and also highlighted how there advertisement equated paramedical physiotherapists with MD/DNB Physiatrists. Full letter is reproduced below:

An Open Letter to Health Minister on the PMR mess at PGI
Shri J.P.Nadda ji
The Honorable Health Minister
Government of India
New Delhi

Rehabilitation is a process aimed at enabling persons with disabilities to attain and maintain optimal, physical, sensory, intellectual, psychological environmental or social function levels. At the outset, I declare that I have no conflict of interest. I am a MD Physiology and have no relation to Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR) or Orthopedic specialty. However, as a doctor with disability and a disability rights activist, I have petitioned State Commissioner (Disabilities), to direct Health Department of the Govt of the Delhi to instruct Medical Directors of the three hospitals under them to set up PMR department at the earliest. I have also written to Medical Council of India (MCI) to start Disability Medicine in medical curriculum and petitioned National Human Rights Commission on the accessibility of medical institutions in the Country.

The Department of PMR at PGIMER Chandigarh was created in 2008 to fulfill the Institute’s mandate of providing skilled manpower in this medical specialty, besides catering to the Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and patients of functionally debilitating conditions from north India in the PGIMER catchment areas. This had become necessary after, in the back-drop of Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, India became one of the signatories to United Nations Conventions on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (#UNCRPD) and it became a duty of the state to provide Rehabilitation Services to PwDs.

In March 2009, then Professor & Head of the Department repatriated back to his parent Institute (All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi). The Department of PMR at PGIMER has been under part-time, care-taker Head of the department since April 2009. The incumbent part-time, care-taker head of the Department is neither a PMR specialist nor has any previous PMR experience. The department therefore is without full time PMR Specialist HoD since April 2009 and has reduced to just a glorified physiotherapy service only. Even Neurology dept at PGI has been referring patients to PMR Dept of CMC Ludhiana.

The Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has earlier instructed MCI vide CCPD No.9-3/CCD/2007 dated 15 May 2008 that “doctors not trained on rehabilitation should restrict their treatment of children with disabilities to their medical illness/disease or else action be initiated against such practices under relevant section of MCI.”

The interviews were held for the post of Professor of PMR in 2015 and 2016 but the only candidate having the required PMR qualification and requisite experience was not selected. Moreover, the faculty recruitment rules were changed during the recruitment process last August, as the post was withdrawn (06 October 2016) and re-advertised (07 October 2016) incorporating arbitrary and illogical eligibility criteria against MCI norms for non-PMR specialists.

In the new recruitment rules, for faculty in PMR, MS (Orthopedics) was also added as one of the eligibility qualifications. The experience criteria for MS (Ortho) candidates were also relaxed. A PMR Specialist needs to have 14, 10, 6 and 3 years of experience for the posts of Professor, Additional Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in PMR respectively, while a non-PMR Specialist (read MS Orthopedics) candidate needs only 8, 5, 3 and 2 years of experience in PMR out of 14, 10, 6 and 3 years for the same posts.

In fact, AIIMS Delhi, UPSC and MCl of India require 2 years of additional PMR training for non-PMR specialists (MS Orthopedics, MD General Medicine, MS General Surgery) to be considered for PMR faculty/consultant posts.

With the passage of the new Disability Act, it has become all the more important that strong PMR Dept be there to cater to the obligations of the state as provided under the RPWD Act 2016 and Article 25,26 of the UNCRPD. It is therefore requested to revive the rehab services at PGI Chandigarh by:
a) Appointing a full time PMR Specialist as Professor and Head of the Department; and
If at all the PMR faculty recruitment rules are to be revisited and modified, the inputs should be from PMR Specialists in other National Institutes (AIIMS/JIPMER/NIMHANS)/medical colleges with PMR teaching departments, and Doctors with Disabilities.

#Disability #CRPD #RPWD #Rehabilitation #Physiatry #PMR