71 Medical Colleges Not Complying With Norms In West Bengal: Health Ministry Tells Rajya Sabha
Union Minister Anupriya Patel informed Parliament on Tuesday that 34 medical colleges in West Bengal were found deficient in various parameters in 2024-25, and 37 in 2025-26. Patel, the Minister of State for Health, mentioned in the Rajya Sabha that both government and private facilities were issued show cause notices by the National Medical Commission, reported PTI.
The deficiencies are related to faculty, infrastructure, and other clinical standards, she stated in a written reply. Colleges lacking these parameters in 2024-25 were fined, while those not complying in 2025-26 were granted only conditional renewal of MBBS seats.
Sanjiban Hospital and Medical College was discovered operating without NMC approval and received a notice on May 19.
The Under Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) of the NMC issued an 'alert' notice to all stakeholders on May 19 against unauthorised medical colleges operating without required approvals. These facilities were misleading students and parents by claiming recognition and offering admissions in unsanctioned medical courses.
medical colleges. The NHM chief has sent a letter to the principal and health secretaries of all states and UTs.
This concept of displaying boards has been part of previous health messaging, including in canteens of all ministries and government departments.
'There is an urgent national need to combat obesity and Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) through healthier habits and reduction in oil and sugar consumption," Aradhana Patnaik, Additional Secretary and Mission Director (NHM) wrote in a letter dated June 27.
The letter further instructed to 'sensitise school teachers and children on healthy diet and reduced sugar/oil intake" during RBSK (Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram) screening and to activate community platforms to spread the message.
view comments
First Published:
July 30, 2025, 18:14 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Superb Hygienic Disposals Fined Rs 10,000 Per Day
Nagpur: Cracking down on poor biomedical waste management, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has imposed a daily fine of ₹10,000 on Superb Hygienic Disposals—the agency responsible for collecting medical bio-waste in the city. The penalty, made effective retrospectively from July 15, followed a surprise inspection that uncovered serious lapses in the handling of hazardous waste. On July 15, additional municipal commissioner Vasumana Pant and deputy commissioner Rajesh Bhagat conducted an unannounced visit to the Bhandewadi bio-waste treatment facility. During the inspection, officials found used saline bottles, soiled plastic, syringes, and other contaminated materials dumped openly near the incinerator, a blatant violation of environmental safety norms and the agency's contractual obligations. "We have issued a notice, and I've initiated the fine as per the contract. The penalty is ₹10,000 per day, effective from July 15, and it will continue until complete compliance is achieved," Pant said. As per the agreement signed on August 12, 2004, Superb Hygienic Disposals is mandated to collect biomedical waste from hospitals, clinics, and pathological labs across the city and ensure its scientific disposal at the Bhandewadi incinerator within 48 hours. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it better to shower in the morning or at night? Here's what a microbiologist says CNA Read More Undo Clause 14 of the contract specifies that failure to meet this timeline attracts financial penalties. On July 30, deputy commissioner Bhagat issued a formal notice to the agency, demanding an explanation within 24 hours. Although the agency responded, its justification failed to satisfy NMC authorities. "They cited a machine breakdown, but the volume of accumulated biomedical waste far exceeded what could be expected from a one- or two-day disruption. That level of neglect is inexcusable," said Pant, adding that the civic body will no longer tolerate such lapses. "There was an unnecessary amount of biomedical waste lying in the open, which is dangerous and unacceptable. We're allowing a window for them to clear the backlog, but the penalty will continue until the waste is disposed of as per norms," she added. According to Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) guidelines, all biomedical waste must be incinerated within 48 hours of generation. Despite being entrusted with this task, Superb Hygienic Disposals has reportedly shown a pattern of negligence, prompting the NMC to take strict action for the first time. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
The Hindu
20 hours ago
- The Hindu
How distance Ph.D.s and non-MBBS appointments are undermining India's clinical teaching standards
The slow erosion of India's medical education standards is not occurring through a single cataclysmic policy misstep, but through the quiet normalisation of appointing non‑MBBS distance Ph.D. degree holders to core teaching posts in medical colleges. For a proportion of previous and recent appointments, such non‑medical appointees reportedly completed their Ph.D. through distance or part‑time modes while simultaneously holding full‑time employment in another institute—a dual track that precludes the sustained, supervised laboratory and pedagogic immersion essential for authentic academic formation. Regulatory oversight? These distance or part‑time Ph.D. programmes are outside the regulatory purview of the National Medical Commission (NMC)—the NMC neither designs their curriculum nor directly inspects, audits, or certifies their conduct—meaning the medical education regulator has no effective control or quality oversight over the very doctoral credentials now being used to claim equivalence with clinically trained MBBS postgraduate faculty. What at first glance looks like an efficient stop‑gap to fill perceived faculty shortages is, on closer scrutiny, a dilution of the clinical, ethical, and integrative foundation on which competent physicians are built. Undergraduate medical training - the MBBS pathway is a longitudinal, immersion‑based formation: structured exposure to Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pathology, Pharmacology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine, Community Medicine, and a spectrum of clinical rotations — all under a regulated environment that binds the learner and later the practitioner to explicit professional conduct norms, licensure examinations, bedside responsibilities, interdisciplinary team communication, and patient accountability. Impacts on curriculum delivery Similarly, post graduate course is also in control of the Competency-based medical education (CBME) programme of the regulatory body, NMC. But a distance‑mode doctoral program and by Non-MBBS teachers pursued parallel to unrelated full‑time employment cannot replicate the crucible of supervised patient contact, procedural stewardship, morbidity–mortality analysis, ethical case discussions, real laboratory quality systems, and iterative assessment that shapes judgment in a medical graduate. When colleges accept individuals without this integrated clinical apprenticeship to teach foundational subjects, the curriculum fractures: facts are transmitted, but the living clinical context and safety net of tacit knowledge are thinned. Distance Ph.D. pathways—especially when undertaken concurrently with another full‑time institutional job—often emphasize dissertation completion logistics over immersive pedagogy or translational applicability. Medical Students taught under faculty whose own training was not scaffolded by mandatory clinical postings are less likely to receive the nuanced integration: how a biochemical pathway alteration manifests at the bedside, how anatomical variants complicate an emergency procedure, why microbiological resistance patterns alter antibiotic stewardship, how pharmacokinetics aligns with organ dysfunction scoring, or how physiological compensations appear in vital trend curves. The loss is cumulative and only surfaces years later in weaker differential diagnoses, fragmented reasoning on ward rounds, and diminished readiness for unforeseen public health crises. Knowing subject content Vs Pedagogy Advocates of widening the faculty pool argue that 'subject content is universal' and that any research doctorate adds scholarly depth. Scholarly depth is valuable; however, a distance or part‑time doctorate earned concurrently with full‑time service elsewhere and unanchored to continuous, verifiable lab supervision or patient‑centered clinical correlation cannot instill the reflexive safety lens essential for teaching future prescribers. Pedagogy in medical sciences is not solely the transmission of molecular cascades or histological slides; it is the curation of clinically salient emphasis—knowing which deviation matters urgently for patient outcomes and which is academic ornament. That calibration arises from lived participation in multidisciplinary rounds, mortality audits, infection control committees, transfusion reaction reviews, pharmacovigilance reporting, and real‑time management of complications. Without it, teaching risks becoming an abstract enumeration of lists, divorced from risk stratification and pragmatic triage thinking. Talent drain? A second risk vector emerges in academic ethics and assessment integrity. Distance/dual‑employment Ph.D. entrants—particularly where oversight of thesis originality, sample authenticity, ethical clearance rigor, time‑on‑task documentation, and statistical methodology is uneven—may unintentionally propagate lax standards among MBBS students observing their evaluators' citation practices or superficial engagement with updated guidelines. The message a system sends when it elevates distance, simultaneously‑employed credentials over regulated, full‑time, residency‑rooted academic progression is that experiential clinical immersion and competency‑based milestones are negotiable. This disincentivises bright MBBS graduates from pursuing teacher–scholar careers; they witness equivalence (or even preference) granted to those who bypassed the demanding crucible they endured. The talent drain that follows redirects academically gifted clinicians to corporate hospitals or overseas fellowships rather than classrooms where standards appear administratively malleable. CBME impaired? Moreover, the 'faculty shortage' justification is frequently unsubstantiated when one audits the actual pool of eligible MBBS postgraduates and junior faculty awaiting timely recruitment or promotion. Bottlenecks typically lie in delayed selection processes, unfilled sanctioned posts, opaque panels, or wage disparities—not in an absolute absence of clinically trained educators. Substituting structurally expedient distance/dual‑employment Ph.D. holders masks governance failures instead of correcting them. Long term, this misallocation impairs implementation of Competency‑Based Medical Education (CBME), which demands scenario‑based learning, early clinical exposure, skills lab mentorship, simulation debriefs, and Workplace Based Assessments—activities requiring mentors with authentic clinical anchoring and physical presence. Policy Inconsistency with CBME Implementation: Notably, in its recent gazette notifications preceding Teachers Eligibility Qualifications (TEQ) 2025, the NMC itself had reduced the permissible percentage of non‑MBBS faculty—first in Pharmacology and Microbiology, and then further in Anatomy, Physiology, and Biochemistry—explicitly citing the roll‑out of CBME and the consequent need for clinically anchored teaching. If CBME's very premise is integrated, bedside‑linked learning, what policy logic now justifies reinstating higher quotas for non‑MBBS appointees in TEQ‑2025? The reversal appears not to be evidence‑driven but expediency‑driven, undermining the pedagogic rationale NMC advanced barely a year earlier. Questioning the Rationale for re‑inclusion: When the regulator had already acknowledged that MBBS‑trained faculty are essential for CBME's success—and when postgraduate (MD/MS) doctors in these subjects are increasingly available—why reopen the door for Non-MBBS distance/part‑time Ph.D. holders outside NMC oversight? This about‑turn demands transparent disclosure of: (a) the data sets reviewed, (b) stakeholder consultations conducted, and (c) the projected impact on CBME outcomes that purportedly justify this shift. Call for Evidence and Transparency: TEQ‑2025 should therefore be compelled to publish a comparative impact assessment: What measurable deficits arose from the reduced non‑MBBS percentages that necessitated their resurgence? Absent such data, the move appears to legitimize administrative shortcuts rather than solve genuine faculty gaps. If quality was the stated reason to decrease non‑MBBS representation earlier, quality cannot simultaneously be the reason to increase it now. Research culture also suffers. Foundational departments steward antimicrobial stewardship, pharmacogenomics, molecular pathology validation, high‑throughput clinical biochemistry quality assurance, public health surveillance analytics, and emerging biomarker translation. Faculty whose doctorates were accumulated in distance modes while employed full time elsewhere may generate publication counts, but translational relevance, patient safety nuance, and interdisciplinary collaboration depth often lag, shrinking institutional capacity to contribute meaningfully to national health priorities (antimicrobial resistance containment, rational drug use, outbreak analytics, non‑communicable disease biomarker validation). Regulatory complacency over equivalence invites proliferation of marginal institutes offering distance doctoral products to meet 'demand,' inflating a supply of paper‑qualified yet clinically unseasoned aspirants and accelerating a downward feedback loop. The absence of NMC oversight over these distance Ph.D. courses further compounds the risk: no centralized standards for laboratory infrastructure, ethical review rigor, or supervisor–student ratios are enforced, allowing uneven quality to masquerade as equivalent scholarship. Medical Students—the most vulnerable stakeholders—may initially remain unaware. Pass percentages can stay superficially stable if examinations overemphasize recall. Yet internship supervisors will perceive weaker synthesis skills; postgraduate entrance outcomes may reveal deteriorating performance in integrated reasoning segments; patient safety indicators may subtly decline. By the time alarms are undeniable, affected cohorts cannot retroactively receive authentic mentorship. Preventive action is therefore imperative now. Who ensures quality? Policy and governance imperatives: Reaffirm that core preclinical and paraclinical teaching posts must be held by MBBS graduates with requisite postgraduate degrees and documented full‑time academic engagement; disallow acceptance of distance/part‑time Ph.D.s pursued concurrently with other full‑time employment as equivalently qualifying for these posts—especially noting that such courses are presently outside NMC regulation and control; mandate transparent, third‑party audited logs of laboratory presence, ethical approvals, raw data provenance, and supervisor sign‑offs for any doctoral work considered in faculty selection; It should also be required that every faculty member's doctoral credentials are screened and vetted by the NMC or its designated authority—recognising that to date there has been no systematic screening of non‑MBBS appointees who completed distance Ph.D.s while employed full time in Indian medical colleges; realign promotion criteria toward educational innovation, validated clinical–research integration, mentorship hours, and ethical scholarship instead of mere credential accumulation; and accelerate timely recruitment of clinically grounded educators through streamlined selection panels, competitive retention packages, and structured pedagogical upskilling. Medical education is a national trust. Diluting its human resource standards by normalising distance, dual‑employment Ph.D. credentials for core teaching posts—credentials produced in courses that the NMC does not directly regulate—risks manufacturing future practitioners less prepared for complex, resource‑constrained, ethically intricate healthcare realities. India's demographic scale, epidemiological dual burden, and aspirational global health leadership demand the opposite: uncompromising reinforcement of clinically rooted academic excellence. Reversing this quiet slide—especially the pattern where most non‑medical entrants secured distance doctorates alongside full‑time external jobs beyond NMC oversight—protects both the competence and the conscience of tomorrow's healers. If CBME demanded fewer non‑MBBS teachers yesterday, how does the same CBME demand more of them today—without any new evidence on learning outcomes? (Dr. Anoop Singh Gurjar is the General Secretary, All India Pre and Para Clinical Medicos Association (AIPCMA) and a member of Rajasthan Medical Council)
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
2,849 MBBS seats went vacant in 2024 despite 39% rise in seats since 2020: Centre
India has seen a 39% jump in MBBS seats over the past four years—from 83,275 in 2020–21 to 1,15,900 in 2024–25. But the worrying bit? Thousands of seats are still going vacant each 2024–25 alone, 2,849 undergraduate medical seats remained unfilled, as per data presented in Parliament by Minister of State for Health Anupriya Patel on August biggest spike in vacancies was recorded in 2022–23, when 4,146 seats (excluding AIIMS and JIPMER) went unclaimed. Since then, the number has dropped but hasn't YearVacant UG Seats2021–222,0122022–234,1462023–242,9592024–252,849WHICH STATES LEAD IN MBBS SEATS?Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Gujarat are among the top states contributing the most MBBS states led both in 2020–21 and 2024–25. For instance, UP's seat count jumped from 7,428 to 12,325 and Tamil Nadu's from 8,000 to 12, a look at MBBS seat growth across states: Seats2024–25 Seats1Andaman & Nicobar1001142Andhra Pradesh5,2106,5853Arunachal Pradesh501004Assam1,0501,7005Bihar2,1402,9956Chandigarh1501507Chhattisgarh1,3452,1058Dadra & Nagar Haveli1501779Delhi1,4221,34610Goa18020011Gujarat5,7007,00012Haryana1,6602,18513Himachal Pradesh92092014Jammu & Kashmir1,1351,38515Jharkhand7801,05516Karnataka9,34512,19417Kerala4,1054,70518Madhya Pradesh3,5854,90019Maharashtra9,00011,84420Manipur22552521Meghalaya5015022Mizoram10010023Nagaland010024Odisha1,9502,67525Puducherry1,5301,87326Punjab1,4251,69927Rajasthan4,2006,27928Sikkim5015029Tamil Nadu8,00012,00030Telangana5,2408,91531Tripura22540032Uttar Pradesh7,42812,32533Uttarakhand8251,35034West Bengal4,0005,699WHAT'S DRIVING THIS GROWTH?The government has been pushing hard to improve medical education across India. New medical colleges have come up in underserved areas, many under a centrally sponsored scheme. Of the 157 new colleges approved, 131 are already National Medical Commission (NMC) also introduced the Minimum Standard Requirement Regulations in 2023. These rules ensure new colleges meet minimum infrastructure, faculty, and clinical benchmarks before getting the green new institutions, older state and central medical colleges are being upgraded to increase MBBS and postgraduate intake. The aim is clear: meet India's growing need for qualified doctors — but also make sure no seat goes to waste.- Ends advertisement
