Complete list of Cabinet Ministers and Portfolios - India

CABINET
Manmohan Singh	Prime Minister
Pranab Mukherjee	Finance
Sharad Pawar	Agriculture, Food and Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution
A K Antony	Defence
P. Chidambaram	Home Affairs
Mamata Banerjee	Railways
S M Krishna	External Affairs
Ghulam Nabi Azad	Health and Family Welfare
Kapil Sibal	Human Resource Development
Veerappa Moily	Law and Justice
Ambika Soni	Information and Broadcasting
Anand Sharma	Commerce and Industry
S Jaipal Reddy	Urban Development
Murli Deora	Petroleum and Natural Gas
Kumari Selja	Housing, Urban and Poverty Alleviation, Tourism
Sushil Kumar Shinde	Power
Vilasrao Deshmukh	Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises.
Kamal Nath	Surface Transport and Highways
Virbhadra Singh	Steel
A Raja	IT and Communication
Dayanidhi Maran	Textiles
Meira Kumar (resigned)	Water Resources
C P Joshi	Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
M S Gill	Youth Affairs and Sports
M Azhagiri	Chemicals and Fertilizers
Mallikarjun Kharge	Labour and Employment
Farooq Abdullah	New and Renewable Energy.
Subodh Kant Sahay	Food Processing Industries
G K Vasan	Shipping
Pawan Kumar Bansal	Parliamentary Affairs
Vyalar Ravi	Overseas Indian Affairs
B K Handique	Mines, Development of North-Eastern Region
Mukul Wasnik	Social Justice and Empowerment
Kantilal Bhuria	Tribal Affairs
MINISTERS OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE)
Praful Patel	Civil Aviation
Prithviraj Chavan	Science and Technology; Earth Sciences and MoS in the PMO; Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Parliamentary Affairs.
Sriprakash Jaiswal	Coal; Statistics and Programme Implementation
Salman Khursheed	Corporate Affairs; Minority Affairs
Dinsha J Patel	Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Krishna Tirath	Women and Child Development
Jairam Ramesh	Environment and Forests
MINISTERS OF STATE
Mahadev S Khandela	Road Transport and Highways
Dinesh Trivedi	Health and Family Welfare
Sisir Adhikari	Rural Development
Sultan Ahmed	Tourism
Mukul Roy	Shipping
Mohan Jatua	Information and Broadcasting
D Napoleon	Social Justice and Empowerment
Dr S Jagathrakshakan	Information and Broadcasting
S Gandhiselvan	Health and Family Welfare
Tusharbhai Chaudhary	Tribal Affairs
Sachin Pilot	Communications and IT
Arun Yadav	Youth Affairs and Sports
Pratik Patil	Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises
R P N Singh	Road Transport and Highways
Shashi Tharoor	External Affairs
Vincent Pala	Water Resources
Pradeep Jain	Rural Development
Agatha Sangma	Rural Development
Ajay Maken	Home Affairs
Jitin Prasada	Petroleum and Natural Gas
E. Ahamed	Railways
Srikant Jena	Chemicals and Fertilizers
Mullappally Ramachandran	Home Affairs
V Narayansamy	Planning, Parliamentary Affairs
Jyotiraditya Scindia	Commerce and Industry
D Purandeswari	Human Resource Development
K H Muniyappa	Railways
Panabaka Lakshmi	Textiles
Namo Narain Meena	Finance
M M. Pallam Raju	Defence
Saugata Ray	Urban Development
SS Palanimanickam	Finance
A Sai Prathap	Steel
Preneet Kaur	External Affairs
Gurudas Kamath	IT and Communications
Harish Rawat	Labour and Employment
K V Thomas	Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution

--
Regards
Vijayashankar

ஒரு கேள்வி பல பதில்கள்

நீங்கள் இந்த பதிவையும்,

All about Wockhardt, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore

மற்றும் இந்த பதிவையும் படித்திருப்பீர்கள்.

A reply from Wockhardt, Bangalore

அதை குறித்து, மருத்துவர் ப்ருனோ இந்த பதிவில் எழுதியுள்ளார். (அருமையான தமிழ் நடை! )

சுகப்பிரசவமும், அறுவை சிகிச்சையும், ஊடக நீதிமன்ற தலையீடும் - ஏன் மருத்துவர்கள் சிசேரியன் செய்கிறார்கள்

மேலும் அவர் எழுதிய பதில்கள் என்னுடைய வோர்ட்ப்ரெஸ் ப்ளாகில் இருக்கு.

நான் இட்ட பதில் இங்கே...

ராஸ்மி கேசை பொறுத்த வரை லதா கொடுத்த தயிரியம் தான் காரணம் என்று தெரிகிறது. ரிஸ்க் இருக்கு வேண்டாம் என்று சொல்லியிருந்தால் எல்லாம் நலம்.... (அவர்கள் பதிலில் இதை தான் கோடிட்டு காட்டியிருக்கிறார்கள்! ) அப்புறம், என் ப்ளாகில் வரும் கமண்டுக்கள் பார்த்தால், ப்ரோபெசனல் ப்ளாகர்ஸ், தங்கள் ப்ளாகை பிரபலப்படுத்த வேண்டுமென்று கமன்ட் இட்ட மாதிரி தெரியுது!

மேலும் நேற்று நான் சென்ற ஜெயதேவாவில், கட்டாயம் ட்றோபோனின் டெஸ்ட் செய்ய வைத்தார்கள், ரெகுளர் ஹார்ட் செக்கபிர்க்கு! எனக்கு மொத்தம் ரூ 2000 செலவு கவலை இல்லை. ஏழைகள் என்ன செய்வார்கள்? அங்கு சிலர் ரேசன் கார்டு காட்டி, 50% டிஸ்கவுண்ட் பெற்றாலும், மருந்து சீட்டு வைத்துக்கொண்டு பிச்சை எடுப்பது, மனதுக்கு கஷ்டமாக இருக்கு.

நல்ல வேலை நான் டாக்டர் ஆகவில்லை ( 1986 ஸ்டேன்லி ). என் சீட் மற்றொரு ஏழை மாணவனுக்கு போயிருக்கும்.

அப்படி ஆகியிருந்தாலும், ஸ்பெஸலைஸெஸன் என்று செலவு செய்து, எங்கள் சமூகத்தில் வழக்கப்படி, நல்ல விலைக்கு ( 100% வரதட்சணை! ) விற்றிருப்பார்கள். ;-)
--
அன்புடன்
விஜயஷங்கர்
பெங்களூரு

A reply from Wockhardt, Bangalore

Here is a reply posted on my Wordpress blog , by a doctor, supposed to be from a doctor working there.

Note - no one is maligning anybody. Just as media published both sides, I am publishing this reply.

===============================================

The author of this reply is Dr. Akhilesh Pateraya. akhilesh.pateraya@wockhardthospitals.com

Reputations take a lifetime to build, is it right to destroy them without understanding true facts and make a hospital and its doctors look inhuman? The true facts of Ms Rashmi BT’s case

Ms. Rashmi B.T. was under the care of a senior gynaecologist in Bangalore for her second pregnancy. She had a breech presentation (where the legs of the baby present itself first instead of the head during the time of delivery) in the earlier pregnancy which required a C-Section. She made a conscious decision to shift under Dr. Latha Venkatram’s care at Wockhardt Hospitals, Bangalore in the 35th week of her pregnancy largely because she was aware that Vaginal Birth after Caesarian Section (VBAC) was an option and wanted to select that option for her second delivery. She had collected information that Dr. Latha Venkatram was one of the senior gynecologists in the city who offered this option to her patients. From the OPD records filed by Dr Latha Venkatram it is evident that Rashmi was counseled and given ample information about the procedure and the risks associated with it and she took an informed choice to select this procedure.

Vaginal Birth after Caesarian Section (VBAC) is the term used when a woman gives birth vaginally, having had a caesarian delivery in the past. Worldwide VBAC, if possible, is being recommended and preferred over repeat C-Sections as its advantages substantially outweigh the disadvantages. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists patient information guideline 2008 “Birth after previous Caesarian Section”, overall three out of four women with an uncomplicated pregnancy would give birth vaginally following one caesarian section delivery. The short-term and long term complications inherent in a C-Section make it preferable that a woman is offered the choice of a VBAC. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and have set a goal of 37% VBAC deliveries by 2010

Repeat Caesarian sections are associated with:
o A possibly more difficult operation
o Longer recovery period
o Possibility of injury to bladder or bowel
o Possibility of blood clots developing in legs and pulmonary thrombosis
o Breathing problems for the baby. Higher in C-Section than in VBAC
o Serious risks increase with every Caesarian delivery
o Higher chance of infection
o Future complications for the mother who has had repeated opening of the abdomen
o Higher costs
VBAC has a shorter stay in the hospital, faster recovery as well as lower cost for the patient. There is a risk of uterine rupture but this risk is approximately 0.5%. In spite of this risk the benefits of VBAC far outweigh the risks. As in all medical procedures there is no way to predict which patient would fall under the 0.5% risk of uterine rupture or any way by which this rupture can be prevented. A VBAC delivery is more demanding of the gynaecologist, as it takes 6-8 hours as compared to a C-Section, which in a planned fashion would be over in less than 40-45 minutes. Also the mother and child need close monitoring it is estimated that one will have to do as many as 200+ unnecessary C-Sections to prevent the occurrence of 1 uterine rupture. In most cases a uterine rupture is not fatal. However in the best interest of Ms Rashmi, Latha Venkatram gave her both the choices and Ms Rashmi chose to opt for the VBAC option.
Ms. Rashmi B.T. was a fit candidate for a VBAC. She had a breech presentation in the earlier pregnancy which required a C-Section. A breech presentation in the earlier pregnancy which necessitated a C-Section is in fact an indication to offer a VBAC to the patient in the subsequent pregnancies. An age of 35 is not a contraindication to a VBAC. The fact that she was 5 days past her due date was also not a contraindication to a VBAC because less than 5% of patients deliver on their due date.
During her antenatal visits to Dr. Latha Venkatram, Ms Rashmi B.T. was explained in detail about the pros and cons of VBAC and she agreed to undergo the procedure. The OPD case records have these notations. She was also clearly informed by Dr. Latha Venkatraman that she works along with Dr. Prabha Ramakrishna as a team and either of them would be present during her delivery. Doctors particularly in the area of obstetrics frequently prefer to work as a team since many times an emergency may hold one of them which would make it possible for the other team member to attend to the delivery as the date and time of delivery cannot be predicted. In a VBAC considering that a consultant needs to be around for most of the labor period it is prudent that a team takes care of the patient. Both Consultants of the team Dr. Latha Venkatram and Dr. Prabha Ramakrishna are Fellows and Members of the Royal College of Obstetricians UK.
Ms Rashmi B.T was admitted to the hospital early morning on the 4th of March 2009 in spontaneous labour. She was connected to monitors for a close monitoring of both maternal and fetal parameters. She was visited by Dr. Latha Venkatram soon after admission. An experienced nurse and a fully qualified gynaecology registrar were monitoring her constantly. The Consultant Dr. Prabha Ramakrishna was also available on the same floor and repeatedly examined her. She was kept informed about the progress of the labour.
The labour progressed normally until 1.50 p.m when a sudden decrease in the fetal heart rate was noted (fetal bradycardia). The tracings before 1.50 p.m were normal. The moment fetal bradycardia occurred, the consultant Dr. Prabha Ramakrishna who was on the same floor was called in by the gynecology registrar. When Dr. Prabha Ramkrishna examined Ms Rashmi, the baby’s head position was a little high. She was asked to push to see if the baby’s head would come to +2 position in which case she could do a forceps in the labor room itself and deliver the child. When the baby’s head did not descend as required she asked for the patient to be shifted to the Operating room. After this Ms.Rashmi was not asked to bear down any further.

Shift to the OT was rapid since the dedicated Operation Theatre for Caesarian sections is situated within the labour room complex and this theatre is not used for any other procedure. Within 7-8 mins the patient was in the theatre. The anesthetist had a choice of going in for an emergency general anesthesia which has inherent risks for a pregnant woman or to go in for epidural anesthesia. Since the patient was already receiving pain medication (epidural analgesia) it was decided that for the safety of the mother increasing this analgesia to achieve anesthesia was the preferred option. In the OT the fetal heart rate was recorded as 180 b.p.m on the Doppler. On the OT table an examination was done and it was found that the head had receded and a forceps delivery was not attempted. An immediate emergency C-section was then performed.
The anesthetists, Neo-Natologists and the surgical nursing team had assembled in the theatre within a few minutes of the emergency being declared. The hospital has full- time anesthetists, Neo-Natologists and a surgical nursing team working round the clock to attend to all kinds of medical emergencies.
At the time of birth the baby did not have a heart beat or respiration. Resuscitation was started and the heart beat started about half a minute later. The child was immediately shifted to the Neonatal ICU and put on the ventilator. The baby’s weight at birth has been recorded in the NICU as about 3 Kg. The only reason an exact weight could not be taken in the NICU was that the child was already attached to various lifesaving equipments and the neonatologist had to make the closest estimate. However it must be noted here that a birth weight of 4 KG is not a contraindication for a VBAC.

In the neonatal ICU the clinical team met the family on a daily basis and kept them informed about the status of the baby and the prognosis. The poor prognosis was explained to the parents on the 2nd day itself. An opinion from an external eminent neonatologist was also sought who concurred with the poor prognosis. All decisions regarding further care were made only after extensive discussions with the parents of the baby. Dr.Prakash Vemgal our Neo-Natologist is not only highly experienced but has also gone through some of the highest training in Neo- Natology in high patient volume and reputed international centres.
The doctors and the management (including senior management personnel) of the Wockhardt Hospitals group spent long hours with the parents understanding and trying to address their concerns. As is the normal practice in such a case a complete internal review was done. The family sent to us a detailed list of areas they wanted us to look into during our investigation. We did go into each of these areas and sent them a detailed reply addressing most of these issues including taking the opinion of two leading and senior external gynecologists of the city who do substantial VBAC work. It is unfortunate to note that inspite of providing her all clarifications Ms Rashmi has been projecting an extremely poor image of Dr. Latha Venkatram and the hospital.
Our internal review involved discussions with our own team of gynaecologists, meetings with two external gynaecologists who practice VBAC and the entire clinical care team. Our findings after this detailed internal review are summarized below.
a. Ms Rashmi BT was a fit candidate for a VBAC. She would have been offered this procedure as a first choice by any gynecologist or hospital which practices advanced obstetrics anywhere in the world. Her age or the week of pregnancy were not contraindications to go in for a VBAC.
b. She had made a conscious and informed decision about going in for a VBAC. She had changed her senior gynecologist whom she was consulting until the 35th week of her pregnancy primarily because that gynaecologist was not in a position to offer VBAC.
c. The OPD case notes of which she was given the duplicate copy recorded that she was willing for VBAC and she was informed about all risks of her decision.
d. Both the mother and the child had been monitored carefully right through the labour
e. All medications used for progressing labor were prescribed agents and safe for use in VBAC
f. She did have a uterine rupture which in VBAC carries a risk of 0.5%. This rupture could in no way be predicted or prevented. In spite of the rupture the gynecology team was able to save the uterus for future child bearing.
g. The Operation theatre was ready at the time it was required.
h. All the staff were present in the Operation Theatre within a few minutes of the emergency being declared
i. While the baby was in the NICU Dr.Prakash Vemgal the head of Neo-Natology met up with the parents at regular intervals and kept the family clearly informed about the status and prognosis. All major decisions were taken only after discussion with the parents.
j. Senior management of the organization met up with the family on multiple occasions to understand and address their concerns
A minute by minute account of her story as is being spread through the various emails circulated by various people who were neither physically present during her admission to the hospital nor were involved in her care process exhibits to us a determined effort to harm the reputation of the gynecologist and the hospital without having any understanding of the clinical facts of the case.
Is medicine now going to be judged through the lens of only opinions running across chain mails or through the untiring efforts of institutions and doctors which toil endlessly to save lives but remain spectators to their actions being judged by emotive outbursts?
We do understand the pain and suffering of Ms Rashmi BT. As a hospital every life is precious to us but we are also are in the world of medicine where unfortunate rare complications can be counteracted but every procedure cannot be made risk free. There are many lives which we save each day when all has been given up and each such case teaches us that to pursue medicine is to pursue the limits of the unknown but does that mean that we become victims of public misinformation
We have taken all necessary care and followed every medical protocol that any reputed institution across the globe would have followed. However it is unfortunate that even though Ms Rashmi has not been a victim of any medical negligence she has chosen by this random spread of irrational mails to use a redressal system that is purposely harming the reputation of Dr Latha Venkatram, Dr.Prabha Ramakrisha and our institution.
The case can be subjected to analysis by any competent authority.

An interesting Story - From AB Senior's Blog

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for  Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience  with the legal complications of a bizarre death.
 
Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the  medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died  from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a  ten-storey building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect  indicating his despondency.
 
 
 
As he fell past the ninth floor his life was  interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him  instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net  had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building  workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide  the way he had planned.
 
 
 
"Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "A person who  sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism  might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That  Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have  been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel  that he had a homicide on his hands.
 
 
 
The room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun  blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing  vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset  that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets  went through the window striking Mr. Opus.
 
 
 
When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills  subject "B" in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B." When  confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant  and both said that they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it  was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He  had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to  be an accident; that is, if the gun had been accidentally loaded.
 
 
 
The continuing investigation turned up a  witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior  to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's  financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the  shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father  would shoot his mother.
 
 
 
Since the loader of the gun was aware of this,  he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger.  The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of  Ronald Opus. Now comes the exquisite twist.
 
 
 
Further investigation revealed that the son  was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the  failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump  off the ten-storey building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun  blast passing through the ninth storey window. The son had actually murdered  himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

--
Regards
Vijayashankar