Emphasising that public authorities are answerable not only for failure of emergency access systems but also for wasteful non-use of expensive medical equipment purchased from public funds, the Delhi High Court has directed Aarti Garg, Joint Director, NIC, along with her team, to conduct surprise inspections and audits in all 38 hospitals across Delhi on different dates up to 31 July 2026. The Court clarified that this audit report is to specifically state whether ICU bed availability is being correctly reflected on the website, whether emergency phone calls seeking ICU assistance are being properly attended to, and whether the NextGen e-Hospital Management Information System is being uniformly and consistently implemented across all 38 hospitals.
The Court held that where public health systems are represented as digitally operational, the State must ensure that the digital interface, hospital-level implementation, staff responsiveness, and patient transfer mechanisms function in a consistent and reliable manner in real time. The Court asserted that mere technological deployment or online display of bed data is not enough if patients are still denied treatment or cannot access accurate information during emergencies.
Accordingly, the High Court also directed GNCTD to consider setting up a toll-free number with at least 10 to 20 lines for emergency services and ICU bed availability enquiries, properly manned and capable of providing live data regarding ICU beds and specialties across hospitals. It also directed GNCTD to place on record whether there is a nodal person responsible for acting on inter-hospital referrals and ensuring that referred patients are not turned away, and if no such system exists, to spell out the steps required to create one.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found the situation “unfortunate” because ICU beds were allegedly shown as available online, yet the patient was not provided one. It noted serious concern that telephone numbers displayed for emergency assistance were either unanswered, busy, or handled by persons unable to confirm ICU bed availability. The Bench treated this as an indicator that the system on paper was not translating into actual patient access on the ground.
The Bench further observed that it was unclear how the HMIS platform was actually being used by hospitals and why there was no uniformity in its implementation. It expressly recorded that there was disparity in the manner in which the HMIS platform was being implemented across Delhi Government hospitals and stressed that consistency and uniformity were necessary, especially so that hospital staff and telephone operators do not turn away patients in need of urgent care.
On the PET Cyclotron issue, the Bench held that a machine purchased for Rs. 15.42 crore remaining unused and non-functional for several years despite substantial public expenditure amounted to a “gross waste of public resources.” This observation widened the proceedings from immediate ICU management issues to broader public accountability for non-use of medical infrastructure in government hospitals.
Briefly, a batch of public interest matters concerns public healthcare systems in Delhi, including ICU bed availability and implementation of the NextGen e-Hospital Management Information System across 38 government hospitals. On the previous date, the Court had asked GNCTD to arrange a live demonstration of the HMIS platform and the daily “ICU Beds Saarthi” application. At the hearing, the Amicus Curiae informed the Court about a 70-year-old patient, Kamar Jahan, who had breathing difficulty, was first seen at Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, and was referred onward for an ICU bed, but was allegedly not admitted despite an online indication that ICU beds were available.
The patient’s family said repeated calls to the hospital numbers displayed online did not result in any meaningful response, and even the Court Master could not obtain proper assistance on those numbers. The Court further examined two prescriptions and noted that no UHID had been created for the patient at Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, whereas a UHID had been created at LNJP Hospital. NIC explained that patient data becomes available across hospitals only once it is transmitted to the Ayushman Bharat Health Account system.
The hearing also expanded to another issue flagged by the Amicus relating to the Delhi State Cancer Institute. A senior official confirmed that PET Cyclotron equipment procured in 2017 had remained non-operational because trained manpower was not available for years, and that even by the date of hearing the machine was still not functional as approvals were pending. The note before the Court recorded that the machine had been installed at a cost of Rs. 15.42 crore and had remained non-operational for a prolonged period.
