An internal PGIMER urology probe into allegations of financial misconduct, kickbacks and medical negligence remains unfinished three weeks after an inquiry panel was constituted, while the faculty member named in the complaints continues to work in the outpatient department, according to a report by The Times of India.
The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh formed the panel after Dr Vijay Godam, a resident of Chandrapur, Maharashtra, submitted a written complaint to the institute’s director. The complaint followed what Dr Godam described as a failed penile implant surgery.
According to the report, Dr Godam alleged that patients were directed to a private pathology laboratory where individual tests cost between ₹5,000 and ₹10,000. He further alleged that a 50% commission was routed through intermediaries linked to a faculty member in the Advanced Urology Department. These claims remain allegations contained in the complaint and have not been established by the inquiry.
A PGIMER spokesperson told The Times of India that the matter was under active consideration and that appropriate action would be taken after the findings were finalised. The institute has not, in the supplied report, disclosed a completion date for the investigation or released the panel’s findings.
The current inquiry is also linked to wider concerns about unresolved complaints involving faculty members in the same department. The report refers to earlier grievances, including an allegation that a patient was examined alone in a locked room without a female attendant and was subjected to inappropriate physical contact. The account does not indicate that these allegations have been conclusively established.
Multiple inquiry panels were reportedly constituted to examine the separate complaints. However, sources cited by the newspaper said that the faculty member accused in the cases continued to operate in the outpatient department. The continuation of clinical duties while investigations remain pending has drawn criticism over the institution’s response time and accountability procedures.
The case highlights the administrative tension faced by public hospitals when complaints involve both patient treatment and the conduct of serving medical staff. Internal inquiries must establish the facts, assess the evidence and determine whether disciplinary, clinical or financial action is warranted. Until those processes are completed, the allegations cannot be treated as findings of misconduct.
For patients, the immediate issue is not only the eventual outcome of the inquiry but also the transparency of the process: whether complaints are acknowledged, how long investigations take, and whether interim safeguards are considered when allegations concern treatment, billing or patient privacy. PGIMER’s stated position is that action will follow once the findings are finalised. The next formal milestone is the completion and disclosure of the inquiry’s conclusions.
