Artemis Hospital Licensing: DGHS Under Fire

Artemis Hospital: DGHS Actions Under Scrutiny

On 25th May 2024, a devastating fire at the Baby Care New Born Hospital in Delhi resulted in the tragic deaths of eight newborns. The fire was triggered by the explosion of oxygen cylinders, a preventable disaster that unfolded due to systemic failures. Our earlier reports pointed to more than just the hospital's rule violations; they implicated the government itself for allowing these transgressions to occur unchecked.

Central to this negligence is the role of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) under the Government of NCT of Delhi, the primary authority overseeing healthcare services in both government and private hospitals across Delhi. In the case of the eight new born babies who were burned to death, the DGHS found itself under scrutiny for permitting the Baby Care New Born Hospital to continue operations despite its expired license. Even the license, issued by the DGHS, had allowed the hospital to operate only five beds, yet the facility was running far beyond this capacity, in direct violation of regulations. The DGHS, which publicly asserts on its website its duty to oversee and monitor health services provided by private nursing homes and hospitals, now faces serious questions about how such lapses were allowed to occur under its watch.

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.

The Directorate General of Health Services is entrusted with the crucial role of monitoring public and private hospitals, safeguarding patient rights, ensuring quality healthcare, and maintaining public trust in the system. But what happens when the very agency responsible for these duties is seen colluding with corrupt practices in private hospitals? When the DGHS appears to turn a blind eye to serious violations, and dismisses the concerns of patients and their families, who demand accountability, it raises grave concerns.

The tragedy where newborns were burned to death in the Delhi hospital is not just an isolated incident; it is a symptom of a deeper problem. How many more such tragedies can we afford before decisive action is taken? 

This story related to a case concerning the Artemis Hospital seeks to expose this critical question: Is the DGHS siding with negligent hospitals in Delhi or standing by the vulnerable patients it is meant to protect? The issue becomes even more alarming when these failures are documented in official government records obtained through RTI, exposing a disturbing pattern of negligence and complicity.

When others tell you what happened, The Probe reveals why it happened. Stay informed—join our WhatsApp channel today. Click to join: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaXEzAk90x2otXl7Lo0L

Did the DGHS Lie About Artemis Hospital Licence?

This case exemplifies how the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), GNCTD, operates—whether it respects the rights of patients seeking accountability from private hospitals or sides with those hospitals that flout the law.

The controversy began when Delhi resident Sanjeev Kumar filed an RTI with the DGHS on 31st October 2023, questioning the licensing status of Artemis Hospital in New Friends Colony in Delhi. This inquiry was triggered after Kumar received an exorbitant bill for the treatment of his wife, Shikha Aggarwal, who had been admitted to the hospital on the 7th and 8th of April 2023. Kumar's petition sought clarity on whether the hospital possessed a valid license from the DGHS during his wife's treatment period. He further demanded to know what actions, if any, had been taken by the DGHS against the hospital if it was operating without a valid license.

On 21st November 2023, the DGHS responded to Sanjeev Kumar’s RTI petition, but the response has raised serious concerns.

Here’s a summary of Kumar’s questions and the DGHS’s answers:

Kumar: Did Artemis Hospital have a valid license issued by the DGHS on the dates of my wife Shikha Aggarwal's hospitalisation (07.04.2023 and 08.04.2023)? DGHS Response: Yes. Kumar: If yes, please provide a copy of the license of Artemis Hospital valid from 07.04.2023 to 08.04.2023. DGHS: A copy of the registration certificate is enclosed.

The Probe has accessed the registration certificate provided by the DGHS to Sanjeev Kumar, and the findings are deeply troubling. The certificate is dated 1st August 2023, nearly four months after Kumar's wife, Shikha Aggarwal, was admitted to the hospital. 

This raises serious questions: Why did the DGHS falsely claim in its RTI response that the hospital had a valid license during Shikha's admission? Why did they issue a registration certificate dated 1st August 2023, well after the hospitalisation?

Does this indicate that hospital was operating without a valid license in April 2023, when Shikha was admitted? The DGHS's actions suggest an alarming attempt to protect the hospital, even at the cost of misleading the patient’s family in the RTI reply.

But the story doesn’t end here. What unfolds next is even more concerning.

Dissatisfied with the DGHS's response, Sanjeev Kumar filed a first appeal under the RTI Act. The first appellate authority, in its order dated 20th December 2023, directed the DGHS to provide a revised reply, further intensifying scrutiny over the department’s actions.

Following the directive from the first appellate authority, the DGHS finally issued a revised response. The DGHS in its response revealed that they had received two letters from Artemis Hospital. The first letter indicated that the hospital was in the process of gathering information. The second letter claimed that, as a private hospital, Artemis did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, rendering any requests for information related to the hospital non-maintainable. The hospital further argued that under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, a public authority can only transfer an application to another public authority. Since Artemis is not classified as a public authority under the Act, the DGHS could not forward the RTI request to them.

However, this raises significant concerns. The DGHS certainly has the authority to request and verify whether the hospital had the necessary licenses and documentation to operate. Moreover Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act has provisions for providing information by regulatory public authority by seeking inputs from the concerned private body.  

The information that Sanjeev Kumar sought should already be in the possession of the DGHS. Yet, instead of ensuring accountability, the DGHS simply relayed the hospital's stance that it falls outside the RTI Act's jurisdiction, essentially allowing Artemis to sidestep the issue.

But the case takes an even darker turn from here. Read on.

CIC Slams DGHS Over Artemis Hospital Responses

Unsatisfied with the DGHS's response, Sanjeev Kumar filed a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC), represented by his brother, renowned RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. Agrawal argued before the CIC that the DGHS had provided false information by claiming that the hospital had a valid license during Shikha’s hospitalisation, while the documents proved otherwise. He pointed out that the license sent by the DGHS was dated 1st August 2023, while Shikha was admitted in April 2023, emphasising that no hospital license can be issued retroactively.

What followed was a massive setback for the DGHS. In the CIC's order dated 13th June 2024, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari criticised the DGHS, stating that its response was contradictory. He condemned the department's conduct as casual, causing unnecessary obstructions to the RTI applicant's right to information and constituti

Artemis Hospital: DGHS Actions Under Scrutiny

On 25th May 2024, a devastating fire at the Baby Care New Born Hospital in Delhi resulted in the tragic deaths of eight newborns. The fire was triggered by the explosion of oxygen cylinders, a preventable disaster that unfolded due to systemic failures. Our earlier reports pointed to more than just the hospital's rule violations; they implicated the government itself for allowing these transgressions to occur unchecked.

Central to this negligence is the role of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) under the Government of NCT of Delhi, the primary authority overseeing healthcare services in both government and private hospitals across Delhi. In the case of the eight new born babies who were burned to death, the DGHS found itself under scrutiny for permitting the Baby Care New Born Hospital to continue operations despite its expired license. Even the license, issued by the DGHS, had allowed the hospital to operate only five beds, yet the facility was running far beyond this capacity, in direct violation of regulations. The DGHS, which publicly asserts on its website its duty to oversee and monitor health services provided by private nursing homes and hospitals, now faces serious questions about how such lapses were allowed to occur under its watch.

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.

The Directorate General of Health Services is entrusted with the crucial role of monitoring public and private hospitals, safeguarding patient rights, ensuring quality healthcare, and maintaining public trust in the system. But what happens when the very agency responsible for these duties is seen colluding with corrupt practices in private hospitals? When the DGHS appears to turn a blind eye to serious violations, and dismisses the concerns of patients and their families, who demand accountability, it raises grave concerns.

The tragedy where newborns were burned to death in the Delhi hospital is not just an isolated incident; it is a symptom of a deeper problem. How many more such tragedies can we afford before decisive action is taken? 

This story related to a case concerning the Artemis Hospital seeks to expose this critical question: Is the DGHS siding with negligent hospitals in Delhi or standing by the vulnerable patients it is meant to protect? The issue becomes even more alarming when these failures are documented in official government records obtained through RTI, exposing a disturbing pattern of negligence and complicity.

When others tell you what happened, The Probe reveals why it happened. Stay informed—join our WhatsApp channel today. Click to join: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaXEzAk90x2otXl7Lo0L

Did the DGHS Lie About Artemis Hospital Licence?

This case exemplifies how the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), GNCTD, operates—whether it respects the rights of patients seeking accountability from private hospitals or sides with those hospitals that flout the law.

The controversy began when Delhi resident Sanjeev Kumar filed an RTI with the DGHS on 31st October 2023, questioning the licensing status of Artemis Hospital in New Friends Colony in Delhi. This inquiry was triggered after Kumar received an exorbitant bill for the treatment of his wife, Shikha Aggarwal, who had been admitted to the hospital on the 7th and 8th of April 2023. Kumar's petition sought clarity on whether the hospital possessed a valid license from the DGHS during his wife's treatment period. He further demanded to know what actions, if any, had been taken by the DGHS against the hospital if it was operating without a valid license.

On 21st November 2023, the DGHS responded to Sanjeev Kumar’s RTI petition, but the response has raised serious concerns.

Here’s a summary of Kumar’s questions and the DGHS’s answers:

Kumar: Did Artemis Hospital have a valid license issued by the DGHS on the dates of my wife Shikha Aggarwal's hospitalisation (07.04.2023 and 08.04.2023)? DGHS Response: Yes. Kumar: If yes, please provide a copy of the license of Artemis Hospital valid from 07.04.2023 to 08.04.2023. DGHS: A copy of the registration certificate is enclosed.

The Probe has accessed the registration certificate provided by the DGHS to Sanjeev Kumar, and the findings are deeply troubling. The certificate is dated 1st August 2023, nearly four months after Kumar's wife, Shikha Aggarwal, was admitted to the hospital. 

This raises serious questions: Why did the DGHS falsely claim in its RTI response that the hospital had a valid license during Shikha's admission? Why did they issue a registration certificate dated 1st August 2023, well after the hospitalisation?

Does this indicate that hospital was operating without a valid license in April 2023, when Shikha was admitted? The DGHS's actions suggest an alarming attempt to protect the hospital, even at the cost of misleading the patient’s family in the RTI reply.

But the story doesn’t end here. What unfolds next is even more concerning.

Dissatisfied with the DGHS's response, Sanjeev Kumar filed a first appeal under the RTI Act. The first appellate authority, in its order dated 20th December 2023, directed the DGHS to provide a revised reply, further intensifying scrutiny over the department’s actions.

Following the directive from the first appellate authority, the DGHS finally issued a revised response. The DGHS in its response revealed that they had received two letters from Artemis Hospital. The first letter indicated that the hospital was in the process of gathering information. The second letter claimed that, as a private hospital, Artemis did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, rendering any requests for information related to the hospital non-maintainable. The hospital further argued that under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, a public authority can only transfer an application to another public authority. Since Artemis is not classified as a public authority under the Act, the DGHS could not forward the RTI request to them.

However, this raises significant concerns. The DGHS certainly has the authority to request and verify whether the hospital had the necessary licenses and documentation to operate. Moreover Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act has provisions for providing information by regulatory public authority by seeking inputs from the concerned private body.  

The information that Sanjeev Kumar sought should already be in the possession of the DGHS. Yet, instead of ensuring accountability, the DGHS simply relayed the hospital's stance that it falls outside the RTI Act's jurisdiction, essentially allowing Artemis to sidestep the issue.

But the case takes an even darker turn from here. Read on.

CIC Slams DGHS Over Artemis Hospital Responses

Unsatisfied with the DGHS's response, Sanjeev Kumar filed a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC), represented by his brother, renowned RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. Agrawal argued before the CIC that the DGHS had provided false information by claiming that the hospital had a valid license during Shikha’s hospitalisation, while the documents proved otherwise. He pointed out that the license sent by the DGHS was dated 1st August 2023, while Shikha was admitted in April 2023, emphasising that no hospital license can be issued retroactively.

What followed was a massive setback for the DGHS. In the CIC's order dated 13th June 2024, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari criticised the DGHS, stating that its response was contradictory. He condemned the department's conduct as casual, causing unnecessary obstructions to the RTI applicant's right to information and constituting a grave violation of the RTI Act. The CIC issued show-cause notices to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DGHS, asking why punitive action under Section 20(1) should not be taken against them and why compensation should not be awarded to the applicant.

In a significant move, the CIC order also highlighted the need to address Kumar's request for compensation from the DGHS under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Kumar was advised to submit his claim for compensation with supporting documents to the Commission, and the DGHS was instructed to respond to Kumar’s claims for compensation within four weeks.

Despite the CIC's strong stance, the DGHS continued to make the patient’s family run from pillar to post. Instead of acknowledging its mistakes and holding the hospital and its own officials accountable, the DGHS responded to the CIC on 12th July 2024, stating that if the patient’s family wanted compensation, they should approach the consumer court.

The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the RTI applicant, Sanjeev Kumar, sought compensation from the DGHS, GNCTD under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for its improper handling of his RTI application. The CIC had emphasised the importance of addressing the compensation issue and had instructed Kumar to file a compensation claim. Yet, despite this directive, the DGHS blatantly advised the RTI applicant to pursue compensation by going to a consumer court, sidestepping its own responsibility.

RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, who represented his brother Sanjeev Kumar before the CIC, expressed his frustration to The Probe: "It is nothing short of a travesty of justice that the DGHS, GNCTD has not taken action against the hospital but is instead asking the patient’s family to approach the consumer court for compensation. This clearly demonstrates that even the Public Information Officer of the DGHS is ignorant of the provisions of the RTI Act. The DGHS should compel the hospital to respond to all inquiries, and if the hospital fails to do so, strict action should be taken, including revoking its license. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for the rule of law by none other than the regulatory authority, the DGHS, GNCTD."

Adding to the controversy, the DGHS also clarified that until 31st March 2023, the premises currently occupied by Artemis Hospital were licensed under the name of Bansal Hospital, with that license expiring on 31st March 2023. Artemis Hospital only obtained its license on 1st August 2023. So, the burning question remains: How did Artemis Hospital operate without a license between 31st March and 1st August 2023? And how did the DGHS allow this blatant violation to occur?

When eight newborns tragically perished in the Baby Care New Born Hospital fire in Delhi, it emerged that the hospital was operating without a valid license from the DGHS. Now, through RTI documents, we discover that another hospital, a reputed one like Artemis Hospital, also functioned without a valid license during a certain period. This revelation begs the question: How many more hospitals in Delhi are operating without proper licenses? Is the DGHS, the authority tasked with monitoring these hospitals, truly fulfilling its responsibilities? If the DGHS cannot even ensure that hospitals possess valid licenses—the most fundamental requirement—how can we trust that they are scrutinising the services these hospitals provide, checking for law violations, or preventing illicit activities?

Even when this severe lapse was brought to the DGHS's attention, and despite being rebuked by the CIC, the DGHS failed to take action against the hospital. Instead, they directed the RTI applicant—the patient’s husband—to pursue his case in consumer court. What does this indicate? Whose interests is the DGHS really protecting? The answer seems alarmingly clear.

After the tragic deaths of eight babies in Delhi, one would hope that the system would finally wake up. It is imperative that the Health Ministry hold the head of the DGHS accountable and initiate an independent inquiry into the DGHS GNCTD’s licensing and monitoring mechanisms. This investigation should also examine whether there is collusion between government officials and private hospitals and, if so, to what extent. This is a matter of great public interest, and we cannot afford to brush it under the carpet, waiting for another horrific tragedy to prompt change.

Dive deeper with The Probe. For thoughtful analysis and in-depth stories directly to your phone, join our WhatsApp channel. Click and Connect with us Today: [WhatsApp Channel Link] 🔗

At The Probe, our commitment to social impact journalism is at the core of everything we do. Funded by well-meaning individuals from the public, our aim is to drive positive social change and make a real-world impact through the stories we report.

If you wish to support us, please visit our Truth Brigade page and contribute to a cause that resonates with you the most. It is through your support that we have been able to keep the flame of our journalism alive in these difficult times. Click link to support us to make a difference: https://theprobe.in/truth-brigade