Rehabilitation Council of India and Clinical Psychologists-Will some one care to read ?

My response to the issue of RCI- Wrote on Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:16 pm

I am also equally or more unhappy about the implementation of the RCI regulations on training and functioning of clinical psychologists working in settings other than rehabilitation. 

But my feeling is that, we ourselves have to own the responsibility because we asked for it. It was not thrust upon us by the RCI but we requested for it and they ‘obeyed’.

But then they extended it to other areas of clinical psychology. If one analyses the period it was brought out and the people who were involved in dialogue with the RCI and to read between the lines, personal unpleasantness between the concerned people may have led to this situation rather than lack of understanding of the scope of the profession of clinical psychology.

Since the RCI rules have been enacted and until we show our strength through different tactics including lobbying the parliamentarians, we may have to maintain the status quo since we asked for it.For those of you who have not had the chance to read the past communication from the office of IACP, here are some excerpts (The office bearers are good personal friends of mine and ‘no conscious or explicit’ implication to the region to which they belong)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True Copy (Underline and bold excluded)

(Letter head of IACP)

Dated 2-11-92.

Shri. J.P Singh

Secretary

Rehabilitation Council of India

4, Vishnu Digamber Marg,

New Delhi 110 002.

Sub: Registration of Clinical Psychologists in the Council

Dear Sir,

This is to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your letter No. 3-2/92-RC/350 dated 23-10-92.

We really feel happy to learn that the Rehabilitation Council of India has been invested with the statutory powers under the recently enacted Rehabilitation Council of India Act-1992 to regulate the training programme of the rehabilitation professionals as well as make their formal registration in the Rehabilitation Registrar of India. It is further heartening to note that the Act provides due recognition to the discipline of Clinical Psychology in this respect. Our Association has been making all – out effort in this direction for quite a long time and we hope that the Rehabilitation Council of India Act should greatly help in safeguarding the interests of the professionals dealing with the disabled and sick. Regardless of certain lacuna in the Act which may require some modification in due course, it gives considerable satisfaction that the Government has come forward with some statutory powers somewhat similar to the Medical Council of India to strengthen the functioning and identity of the paramedical professionals.

In this context we would like to bring to your kind attention that the Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists is the sole national body of clinical psychologists and presently there are more than 200 life members, almost half of them designated as fellows on the basis of their affiliation to the association and academic achievements. Annual subscribers are known as professional members in the association.

As desired by you, an undated list of the members of the association duly authenticated by the Hon. General Secretary, IACP is enclosed herewith along with a copy of the IACP constitution.

As regards the eligibility criteria of clinical psychologist to become a member (professional, life or fellow) of the association he/she should have any one of the essential qualifications given under:

1. Postgraduate Diploma in Medical Psychology or Diploma in Medical Social Psychology / M.Phil. Medical Social Psychology / Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology or equivalent Indian or foreign diploma / degree.
Or
2. Ph.D. in Psychology and at least 4 years experience of whole – time research, teaching or practice of clinical psychology in a recognised institution.
Or
3. Master degree in Psychology with at least 7 years’ experience of whole – time research, teaching or practice of clinical psychology in a recognised institution

A vast majority of the members of the association posses the academic qualification as given in section (a).

I would also like to submit that the training programme in clinical psychology in our country is imparted by the following institution.

Institutes Courses

1. National Institute of Mental Health 1.M.Phil.* Medical Social Psychology (2 Years’ courses)Neurosciences, Bangalore

2. Central Institute of Psychiatry 2. Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, Kanke, Ranchi (Both the courses as above)

3. P.G.I. Chandigarh 1. Ph.D. in clinical psychology

4. B.H.U, Varanasi 1. Ph.D. in clinical psychology

----------------------------------------------------------------

• Previously known as Diploma in Medical Social Psychology (D.M. S.P) or Diploma in Medical Psychology (D.M.P).

----------------------------------------------------------------

Surprisingly enough, there is no mention of any of these training institutes in the Schedule of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act- 1992. It is therefore requested that these institutes should be included in the schedule at the earliest possible as per the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act. And we hope that the accidental omission of the names of these training institutes should in no way cause any delay in the registration of those who possess any of the above-mentioned qualifications.

Further, if it is not inconvenient to you I would take the opportunity of meeting you personally to further clarify some of the issues relating to the discipline of clinical psychology during my visit to Delhi on 13^thNov. 1992.

Lastly, on behalf of the association I wish to express our sincere thanks for providing valuable support to the professionals engaged in the care of disabled and sick.

With kind regards

Yours sincerely

S.C. Gupta

President – elect, IAPC

Copy to all the members of Indian Associations of Clinical Psychologists as per the resolution of the executive council meeting held on November 1 1992.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(True Copy)

Letter head

Date 22-09-93.

To,

All the Members of Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists

Sub: Registration of qualified clinical psychologists by the Rehabilitation Council of India, Ministry of Welfare, Govt. of India.

Dear colleague,

In continuation of my letter dated 6^th November 1992 with regard to the recently enacted Rehabilitation Council of India Act 1992 which is invested with the statutory powers of registration of rehabilitation professionals, it gives me great pleasure to bring to your kind attention that the said Act has been enforced w.e.f. 31^st July 1993 as informed by the Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India vide his letter no. 7-8/93-RCI/2048 dated 6-9-93.

Regardless of the fact that there is only a very limited purpose of registration to the practitioners of clinical psychology under the Rehabilitation Council the available opportunity should of course be utilised.That is what appears to be the consensus of the members who have responded to my circulardated 19-4-93. Undoubtedly, the struggle to achieve the objective of the formation of our own registration council has to continue relentlessly with a greater sense of involvement and commitment of each one of us.

In view of the above it is suggested that the members possessing the requisite qualifications in clinical psychology should submit their application on the prescribed form obtainable from the Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India, 4 Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi 110 002 for purposes of getting themselves registered under the purview of the Council.

With regards and best wishes.

Yours sincerely

S.C. Gupta

President – elect, IACP.

------------------------------------------

Minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting held on 20^th February 2001 at 4.30 P.M. at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), DELHI. ( Selected Relevant Portion)

The following portion was given as the minutes at the general body meeting held at Chennai in 2002. But this was however deleted by the General Body before passing the minutes. Since I did not attend this meeting and has relevance to the issue of discussion, I have included this report. However this part should not be treated as part of the minutes of the meeting.

8. (The issue of RCI was discussed in detail. Many members actively participated and expressed their views. The President Dr. Mishra elaborated the events occurred regarding RCI and also explained his discussions with RCI authorities, and the responses are awaited. Dr. R.K. Gupta wanted more detail discussion about RCI. Dr. Krishnananda felt a strong need to have a separate council, otherwise the status of the clinical psychologists will go down. He was very optimistic about the separate council even if it takes time. Dr. G.G. Prabhu explained the administrative problems both scientific and technical. He felt that all of us joined together (sic) in certain situations either to over react are totally deny the situation. This attitude should not continue. He also felt that it is better to understand what are the powers and see what clauses are clamping the profession and expressed that RCI cannot function as I.T. Department. He felt that the meeting organised by T.B. Singh was a trap. He suggested that confrontation is not going to be useful but a dialogue with Chairman is going to better.

Dr. T.B. Singh conducted a meeting for RCI and explained the circumstances in which he had to do it. Some of the members expressed that this was against the interest of the larger members of the association. Dr. K. B. Kumar explained about the visit by the RCI to his department. He felt that no confrontation is going to be useful and suggested that it would be better to discuss with RCI Chairman before taking any strong decision. It was felt that 6 months time given to the RCI to respond is very short. Dr. V. Kumaraiah reported that he did not recommend for payment to the RCI for inspection of his department, but RCI could come on general visit. Dr. Kiran Kumar wanted the details of resolutions of the meeting held at the IBHAS by RCI. Dr. T.B. Singh gave the details.

Dr. Nathawat wanted details regarding the interpretation of the RCI act and suggested action plan to create awareness among members to curb the misuse of certain provisions. Dr. Kiran Rao expressed happiness for the steps taken at Imphal to restrain RCI in interfering with smooth functioning of clinical psychologists. She felt that rehabilitation was only a part of clinical psychology. So it was not justified to disturb the entire field of clinical psychology. She suggested Dr. Prabhu’s name to be co-ordinator to solve the problem. But Dr. Prabhu expressed his inability to the Co-ordinator. Dr. Manorajan Sahay questioned that why RCI did not go to Orthopaedics and social workers. He wanted that the public should be informed about clinical psychology profession. Dr. Sakunthala Dube felt that there should not be any confrontation with RCI. She expressed that the present set up and atmosphere in RCI was congenial for negotiations.

Some of the members expressed that we should follow physiotherapists in coming out of RCI control by taking legal help. RCI can have control over the people directly working in rehabilitation. Dr. Shanti Mathur and Dr. A.C. Verma even suggested to change the name of association to over come the problem).

However this portion of the minutes was passed by the General Body

The final consensus of the opinion was that (a) No confrontation with the RCI for the time being (b) To meet the authorities and negotiate for a favourable outcome in a systematic way.

Dr. Bhaskar Naidu,

Hon. General Secretary

I.A.C.P.