/theprobe/media/media_files/68XiKuZslFF45R14yuzu.jpg)
CIC Imposes Penalty on DGHS in Artemis Hospital Case, The Probe Impact | Artemis Hospital (Left), DGHS GNCTD (Right) | Photo courtesy: Artemis Hospital (Left), Special Arrangement (Right)
CIC Penalises DGHS in Artemis Hospital Case
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued a strong reprimand and imposed penalties on the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Government of NCT of Delhi for breaching the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The DGHS has also faced action for failing to comply with the orders of the Central Information Commission in a case involving Artemis Hospital, located in New Friends Colony, Delhi.
On August 31, 2024, The Probe exposed a story on how the Directorate General of Health Services, has often been seen aligning with negligent hospitals while circumventing the provisions of the RTI Act. The report detailed the case of Sanjeev Kumar, who had filed an RTI with the DGHS to ascertain the licensing status of Artemis Hospital after receiving an exorbitant bill for his wife’s treatment.
Instead of providing accurate information, the DGHS falsely replied that Artemis Hospital held a valid license during the period Kumar's wife was admitted in the hospital. The Probe reported on how the DGHS's actions were nothing short of an alarming attempt to protect the hospital, even at the cost of misleading the patient’s family in the RTI reply.
We Have a Request for You: Keep Our Journalism Alive
We are a small, dedicated team at The Probe, committed to in-depth, slow journalism that dives deeper than daily headlines. We can't sustain our vital work without your support. Please consider contributing to our social impact projects: Support Us or Become a Member of The Probe. Even your smallest support will help us keep our journalism alive.
When the case reached the Central Information Commission, it issued show cause notices to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DGHS. The CIC also stated the petitioner Kumar’s claim for compensation from the DGHS was to be processed by the DGHS.
Despite the CIC's firm directives, the DGHS continued to stonewall the aggrieved patient’s family. Instead of accepting responsibility and addressing the hospital’s negligence or its own procedural lapses, the DGHS, in its response to the CIC on July 12, 2024, suggested that the patient’s family seek compensation by approaching a consumer court.
However, in its final order issued on January 16, 2025, the CIC strongly criticised the DGHS for its conduct. The Commission noted: “DGHS Delhi has failed to give timely specific information to the appellant and compelled him to run time and again by blindly ignoring his tender old age and also by not addressing the issue flagged by the appellant in toto.”
Stay informed with The Probe. Get original stories, exclusive insights, and thoughtful, in-depth analysis delivered straight to your phone. Join our WhatsApp channel now! Click the link to join: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaXEzAk90x2otXl7Lo0L
The Commission directed the DGHS to pay Sanjeev Kumar compensation of ₹45,000 within two weeks of receiving the order. The directive also mandated the DGHS to file a compliance report with the Commission immediately.
CIC Imposes Penalty on DGHS Official for RTI Violation
The Commission has also issued a stern warning and imposed a penalty on Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, Medical Superintendent, Delhi Health Services, who served as the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the case. Agarwal was penalised for failing to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the orders of the Commission.
The order by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari stated: “His failure to comply with the directions of the Commission shows his nonchalant attitude towards the Commission… Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Commission finds this case to be a fit case for imposition of penalty on the erring official i.e., Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, Medical Superintendent-cum-PIO, Nursing Home Cell, Directorate General of Health Service, GNCTD, Delhi.”
As a consequence, the Commission imposed a penalty of ₹15,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Agarwal for violating the law. The order specified that the penalty amount would be deducted directly from his salary.
Landmark Victory for RTI and Accountability in Healthcare
This case represents a landmark victory for transparency and accountability, where a senior citizen successfully challenged the DGHS for violating the provisions of the RTI Act. The outcome not only compelled the DGHS to compensate the petitioner but also reinforced the responsibility of regulatory bodies in holding private hospitals accountable under the law.
The DGHS initially attempted to dismiss the RTI request by siding with Artemis Hospital’s reply, arguing that being a private entity, it did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act. Citing Section 6(3) of the Act, the DGHS claimed that it could not transfer the RTI application to the hospital, as the RTI Act only permits such transfers between public authorities. However, this defense was factually incorrect.
Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, public regulatory bodies like the DGHS are empowered to obtain information from private entities to ensure compliance with licensing and operational requirements. The CIC’s order has clarified this crucial point, stating that the DGHS cannot evade its responsibility by labeling private hospitals as outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
CIC Calls for Amendments to RTI Act Amid Growing Privatisation
The order emphasised: “It is noteworthy that there are five basic public services for citizens of a Welfare State—health, education, electricity, water, and road. Many State Governments are bringing the Right to (Public) Services Act to ensure delivery of public services, as per which the entities delivering the services are held accountable for deficiencies. Such legislations are complementary to the Right to Information Act because they rely on the flow of information to determine deficiencies. However, by declaring hospitals running under them as private entities and hence being outside the purview of the RTI Act, respondents have defeated the very purpose of such social welfare arrangements and the purpose of enacting the RTI Act.”
The CIC further noted the increasing privatisation of essential public services such as healthcare, education, and utilities, which has led to these entities escaping the accountability mechanisms embedded in the RTI Act. The Commission urged the government to consider state-specific amendments to the RTI Act to include private entities delivering essential public services within the definition of a “public authority.”
Additionally, the Commission flagged concerns regarding the renewal of hospital licenses. The order also stated that in case of renewal of hospital license, despite complaints of malpractices and repeated RTI applications the affected people are not given a chance of being heard at the time of renewal of license of the private hospitals.
To address this, the Commission issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, recommending amendments to regulations governing the renewal of licenses for private hospitals. These amendments would mandate public hearings for affected citizens and prohibit ex post facto license renewals. This ruling not only marks a critical victory for RTI activists but also sets a precedent for greater accountability in the healthcare sector.
To read The Probe’s original news story on Artemis Hospital, click here.