There are 121 private and charitable hospitals in Pune which are on the panel of the contributory medical assistance scheme under the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC)’s health department and Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital is one of them. Hence, the health department of the PMC is bound by the pro-active disclosures under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and compelled to update information at regular intervals, on its website
www.pmc.gov.in.
Besides this Hospital, all other charitable hospitals come under the transparency law but in Pune, none adhere to it. As RTI expert and former director of the RTI cell of Yashada, Pralhad Kachare, informs in no uncertain terms, “All charitable hospitals are under the purview of RTI Act 2005. They must proactively disclose the number of beds they have and daily position of 10% reserved for concessional treatment and 10% beds free for those weakest patients of society. In fact, the charity commissioner and local authorities must develop an online portal where this can be updated on real-time basis along with other details of the hospitals, including fees and charges.”
If you click on the PMC’s health department, you will find a list of private hospitals along with contact numbers, on its website
www.pmc.gov.in.
States RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, “PMC is also required to ensure compliance with health regulations, by inspecting the hospitals at least twice a year. Besides, it is mandatory to appoint a special medical officer to monitor whether the 20% beds and treatment reserved for the poor category are being adhered to. More importantly, whether these hospitals flout norms in terms of taking advance money before treatment. However, no attempt or action has been taken to regulate the hospitals that get precious land for free or at a throwaway price from the government.”
Mr Kumbhar, who has procured the terms and conditions laid down by the state government for the Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, informs that “The hospital must provide 30% beds for complete free treatment to poor patients; another 30% beds at no profit, no loss basis and 100% of the patients must be operated or treated as per the rate of the government hospitals in Pune.” Clearly, these conditions were violated.
Taking advance for emergency medical treatment is a strict no-no as per the charity commission’s rules but they are violated allegedly by all such hospitals. Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital is presently in the eye of the storm for demanding Rs10 lakh advance from the family of the patient who was in distress with bleeding and labour pain.
At a press conference, Dr Dhananjay Kelkar, director of the Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, admitted that Rs10 lakh was demanded on the Hospital form, despite the rule that no advance during medical emergency should be taken, it being a charitable hospital.
The website of the charity commissioner of Maharashtra www.charity.maharashtra.gov.in clearly states the following under `Hospital Scheme’:
* The public Charitable Trust shall be under legal obligation to reserve and earmark 10% of the total number of operational beds for indigent patients and provide medical treatment to the indigent patients free of cost and reserve and earmark 10% of the total number of operational beds at concessional rate to the weaker section patients as per the provisions of section 41AA of the B. P. T. Act.
* In emergency, the Charitable Hospitals must admit the patient immediately and provide to the patient “Essential Medical Facilities” for all life-saving emergency treatment and procedure till stabilisation. Further transportation to the public hospital would be arranged by such Charitable Hospital, if necessary. The Charitable Hospital, shall not ask for any deposit in case of admission of emergency patients. (The Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital clearly faulted in the case of medical emergency patient, Tanisha Bhise, a young mother-to-be, with labour pains in the seventh month of pregnancy bearing twins.)
Dr Mahesh Zagade, former principal secretary of Maharashtra and former municipal commissioner of Pune, elaborates on the number of government agencies which are in charge of ensuring that private and charitable hospitals follow the conditions but no one plays the responsible role. When contacted by Moneylife, he pointed out to the following vital points:
- The revenue department, that is the collector, in this case the Pune collector, when the land is allocated to the hospital, stipulates certain conditions to ensure that it does not become a commercial outfit. It also stipulates the percentage of free treatment which could vary from 30% to 50%. He is responsible to check every year whether the conditions are fulfilled or not and take corrective measures. If he fails, it is the duty of the Pune divisional commissioner to intervene and seek action.
- As per the Maharashtra Nursing Home Act, the local authorities, in this case the Pune municipal commissioner, should check if hospitals are precisely following the terms and conditions required for a charitable hospital. Otherwise, he should issue notice and take appropriate action. Needless to say, suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act like availability of beds in all these hospitals must be updated daily.
- As for the charity commissioner, under Section 41A (a) of the Act, there has been a special addition in the law pertaining to charitable hospitals which states that 10% of the beds is for poor people earning below Rs1.8 lakh per annum in which the entire treatment comes completely free. In the other category which earns below Rs3.6 lakh per annum, the patients have to be charged 50% of the commercial rates of the hospital.
- Besides, there is a legislative committee headed by the state minister of health to review the functioning of the hospitals at regular intervals, a committee under the additional civil surgeon and a district-level committee headed by two MLAs. However, none of these committees functions.
Maharashtra has 554 charitable hospitals. Thus, if you take 20% free treatment patients, it comes to 11,500-odd beds available for the treatment of the poor, but such hospitals have forgotten to adhere to these norms. Rues Dr Zagade, “The law is robust but it is a collective failure of all the heads of local and state authorities as well as heads of the committees.”
Rahul Singh, former state information commissioner of Madhya Pradesh, says, “Information related to the health sector deserves to be proactively disclosed under section 4 of the RTI Act, given its direct and critical bearing on public health. This is a government-regulated sector — from the registration of doctors and hospitals to treatment protocols and compliance mechanisms — every aspect is governed by statutory norms. Citizens have an unquestionable right to know where they are receiving treatment, under what conditions, and whether hospitals are complying with applicable medical regulations.”
He further adds, “While going through the profile of Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, I came across a crucial detail — the hospital has been constructed on land donated by the government. This fact alone places the institution within the domain of public accountability and transparency. When a private or charitable hospital is established on government land or receives substantial indirect aid from the state — such as land at concessional rates or tax benefits — it assumes a public character and is legally obligated to adhere to the principles of the Right to Information Act, particularly the proactive disclosure requirements under section 4.
“The public has an undeniable right to know about the services they are receiving, whether hospitals are violating any rules, and the extent to which these institutions are complying with medical, ethical, and regulatory norms. This includes disclosure of land allotment terms, patient rights, obligations under the charity commissioner’s directives, and adherence to public health standards.”
As per noted Mumbai RTI activist Anil Galgali, “With reference to the Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital incident, lack of transparency enabled the hospital to allegedly flout norms without public scrutiny. The charity commissioner failed to make hospital compliance reports or audits accessible, despite being the licensing authority for charitable trusts. The PMC and state health department failed to disclose inspection findings, quota utilisation, and enforcement mechanisms. Ultimately, patients and their families suffered, unaware of their rights or the obligations of the hospital under its charitable status.
“The non-compliance with section 4 under the RTI Act 2005 by these public authorities shows systemic failure in ensuring transparency and accountability. In the Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital case, it reflects a breach of public trust and points to an urgent need for reforms, proactive disclosures, and digital publication of hospital audit data, charitable quota usage, and inspection reports.”
As per a news report of January 2025 in Pune Pulse, an online city daily, “PMC officials conducted inspections at ten private hospitals registered under the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act 1949. The drive aims to ensure compliance with the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act and the Maharashtra Nursing Home Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2021. A total of 850 nursing homes and hospitals in the city will be covered during this period.” However, the report of this survey has not been uploaded on the PMC website, despite it coming under section 4 of the RTI Act, requiring the civic body to make this data, which is of larger public interest, transparent.
Mr Kumbhar says, “The health department of the Maharashtra state government and the PMC are bound by the law of the RTI Act to disclose and regularly update on their websites - the list of registered hospitals, inspection reports, compliance status, and any actions taken against non-compliant facilities. It should also upload financial details related to subsidies or grants. However, the PMC has not even appointed the special officer who is supposed to monitor them. The PMC, the charity commission and the state health department are all responsible for being negligent in monitoring and not being transparent by putting up information required under section 4 of the RTI Act.
“The charity commissioner must monitor trust deeds, reviewing them from time to time, conducting annual audits, in fact, ensuring that they continue to abide by the charitable norms, as usually, the land for such hospitals is given free or at a negligible cost to the hospital management. In the case of the Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, the six acres of land was given completely free of cost. In the month of February 2025, the hospital was provided a large free parking space area by the PMC at a rent of Rs1 per year.”
Mr Singh concludes, “Proactive disclosure is not just a statutory requirement — it is a constitutional necessity when public interest and health are at stake. Any attempt to withhold such information compromises citizen safety and weakens institutional accountability. Transparency compels hospitals to maintain compliance and allows citizens to assess their conduct, ultimately protecting public welfare.
“Therefore, institutions like Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital — built on public land and regulated by public authorities — must comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act. Public bodies overseeing such institutions must not only furnish information when asked but also proactively publish critical details that serve the public interest.”
(
Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
