A pending inquiry at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh has raised a larger question about how public medical institutions manage allegations involving patient safety, financial misconduct and professional accountability. Three weeks after an inquiry panel was formed to examine complaints in the institute’s Advanced Urology Department, the investigation remains incomplete, while the faculty member named in the allegations continues to work in the outpatient department, according to a Times of India report.
PGIMER’s spokesperson told the newspaper that the matter was under active consideration and that appropriate action would be taken after the findings were finalised. That response establishes the institution’s stated position, but it does not clarify the inquiry’s expected timeline, whether interim safeguards have been considered, or how patients are being protected while the process continues.
The case began with a written complaint submitted to the PGIMER director by Dr Vijay Godam, a resident of Chandrapur in Maharashtra. According to the report, the complaint followed a failed penile implant surgery. Dr Godam alleged that patients were directed to a private pathology laboratory where tests cost between ₹5,000 and ₹10,000, and that a 50% commission was routed through intermediaries linked to a faculty member.
These are allegations, not established findings. The supplied report does not include the inquiry panel’s evidence, the response of the faculty member named in the complaint, the identity of the private laboratory, or any conclusion by a regulator, court or disciplinary authority. The distinction matters because an institutional investigation exists precisely to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred, who was responsible and what action, if any, is warranted.
The governance problem begins when the inquiry process itself becomes opaque. PGIMER has said that the matter is being actively considered, but the report does not indicate when the panel was expected to submit its findings or whether the complainant has been informed about the process. Nor does it state whether the institution has created a formal mechanism for periodic public or internal updates in cases involving allegations against clinical staff.
For patients, an inquiry is not only an internal administrative exercise. A public hospital is simultaneously a treatment provider, a training institution and a custodian of public trust. Its departments handle patients who may have limited information about clinical alternatives, diagnostic requirements and the financial relationships surrounding their care. That imbalance makes transparent referral practices and clear grievance procedures especially important.
The reported cost of the tests is one of the issues requiring examination. The complaint, as described by the newspaper, alleges that patients were sent to a private laboratory and that commissions were paid through intermediaries. Establishing whether such referrals were medically necessary, whether patients were offered alternatives, whether the laboratory had any formal institutional relationship with PGIMER, and whether payments changed clinical decisions would require documentary and financial scrutiny. None of those questions is answered in the available report.
The allegation also points to the institutional boundary between public healthcare and private diagnostic services. Public hospitals routinely interact with external laboratories, suppliers and service providers. That interaction can be operationally necessary, but it also creates a need for disclosure, procurement controls and separation between clinical decisions and financial incentives. The report does not establish that PGIMER’s systems failed in this case. It does show why a complaint involving external testing and alleged commissions cannot be resolved only through informal assurances.
The delay is made more significant by the report’s reference to earlier unresolved grievances involving faculty in the same department. One earlier allegation concerned a patient who was reportedly examined alone in a locked room without a female attendant and subjected to inappropriate physical contact. The report says multiple inquiry panels were constituted in relation to separate incidents, while the accused faculty member continued to work in the outpatient department.
That account does not establish guilt in any of the cases. It does, however, raise a question about how PGIMER manages staff responsibilities while inquiries are pending. Institutions generally need to balance the presumption that allegations must be investigated fairly with the obligation to reduce possible risks to patients and complainants. The available report does not say whether the faculty member’s duties were reviewed, whether supervision was increased, or whether any temporary restrictions were imposed.
This is where procedural delay becomes an urban governance issue. Large public hospitals are part of the essential infrastructure of a city and serve patients from outside the immediate region. PGIMER’s patient base, as reflected by the complainant’s residence in Maharashtra, is not limited to Chandigarh. When a specialised public institution faces unresolved allegations, the consequences extend beyond one department: patients may question referral decisions, families may struggle to understand complaint mechanisms, and staff may receive no clear institutional signal about expected conduct.
The report also illustrates the difference between constituting an inquiry and completing one. Forming a panel can demonstrate that an institution has responded to a complaint. But accountability depends on what follows: collecting records, hearing all relevant parties, examining financial or clinical evidence, protecting complainants from retaliation, and communicating a reasoned outcome. The source material confirms the panel’s existence and the institution’s statement that action will follow finalisation. It does not provide evidence on the panel’s progress or the safeguards operating during the interim period.
For public institutions, the absence of a visible timetable can create two opposing risks. A rushed process may compromise fairness and produce an unreliable conclusion. An open-ended process may weaken confidence, particularly when the people named in complaints remain in contact with patients. The correct balance cannot be inferred from the report, and the available evidence does not show whether PGIMER has adopted one. That uncertainty is itself central to the accountability question.
A credible institutional response would need to distinguish among the separate complaints rather than treat them as one matter. The alleged financial arrangement involving a private laboratory raises questions about referrals, payments and conflicts of interest. The alleged conduct during a clinical examination raises questions about patient dignity, supervision and the presence of attendants. A failed surgery raises questions about clinical outcome and whether the procedure was performed according to accepted practice, although the report alone cannot establish negligence. Each issue requires a distinct evidentiary pathway.
The role of the complainant also matters. Dr Godam’s written complaint provides an identifiable account and a formal route into the institution’s system. But the report does not say whether the complainant has received the documents, explanations or status updates needed to participate meaningfully in the process. Nor does it state whether other patients have come forward or whether PGIMER has reviewed records beyond the individual complaint.
The case therefore exposes a wider weakness common to complex public institutions: internal accountability can become invisible to the people most affected by it. A panel may be working, but patients cannot assess progress unless the institution communicates what can be disclosed without compromising confidentiality or due process. Similarly, continued outpatient duties may be clinically necessary, but the institution must be able to explain what risk controls are in place when allegations concern patient interactions.
The next important development is not simply whether PGIMER announces disciplinary action. It is whether the institution provides a clear, evidence-based account of the inquiry’s findings, the scope of the review and the safeguards applied during the investigation. Until then, the report establishes a pending inquiry and serious allegations, but not the truth of those allegations. It also establishes that three weeks after the panel was formed, the public record still lacks clarity on timing, interim protections and the process by which affected patients will receive an answer.
