Mumbai CGHS Crisis Threatens Thousands of Senior Citizens’ Health
An unspoken administrative conflict between two Union government bodies is on the verge of shutting down a crucial public healthcare facility in Mumbai, jeopardizing the health and well-being of over 2,500 elderly citizens. This dispute involves the Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ), operating under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), overseen by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. What should have been a straightforward inter-departmental resolution has devolved into a significant governance crisis, leaving CGHS beneficiaries to face the severe repercussions.
The heart of this issue is the CGHS Wellness Centre located at SEEPZ (Andheri East), Mumbai. For over three decades, this facility has been a lifeline for government employees, pensioners, and their families. Despite operating continuously from premises provided by SEEPZ authorities for more than 30 years, the center is now slated for closure from February 9, 2026. This disruption began when SEEPZ issued an eviction notice, citing its own need for the building. While the Additional Director of CGHS Mumbai sought guidance from the CGHS Directorate in New Delhi, the response has been a frustrating delay rather than a quick resolution.
T.K. Damodaran, General Secretary of the CGHS Beneficiaries Welfare Association of India (CBWAI), states that the CGHS Directorate had presented two clear options. One was to formally search for a new building, either by collaborating with the Maharashtra government or by inviting private bids. The other was to ask SEEPZ for permission to keep the current center open until a suitable alternative was found. Interestingly, SEEPZ, despite initiating the eviction, also proposed a nearby alternative building, which CGHS Mumbai reportedly rejected due to “technical grounds.” This decision is baffling for elderly beneficiaries who have relied on this center for decades. Damodaran emphasizes, “For senior citizens, the mere existence of the wellness center is more important than its aesthetic. Even a temporary solution would have ensured continuous care.”
The Indispensable Role of CGHS Wellness Centres
To truly grasp the gravity of this closure, one must understand the fundamental role of a CGHS Wellness Centre. Far from being a minor amenity, CGHS forms the essential foundation of outpatient healthcare for central government employees and pensioners. These centers offer daily consultations, dispense medications for both chronic and acute illnesses, facilitate referrals to network hospitals, provide basic diagnostic services, and ensure continuous treatment for prevalent non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, cardiac issues, respiratory ailments, and arthritis – conditions that disproportionately affect older individuals. For many elderly beneficiaries, CGHS isn’t just convenient; it’s often their primary, and sometimes only, affordable connection to healthcare. Even a brief interruption to this access can lead to missed doses, delayed diagnoses, and preventable medical emergencies.
Given this critical role, the Chief Medical Officer overseeing the SEEPZ CGHS Wellness Centre triggered widespread alarm with the February 2, 2026, decision to announce the center’s closure starting February 9. The CGHS Beneficiaries Welfare Association of India (CBWAI) has slammed this move as arbitrary and unilateral, asserting that it completely ignores the pressing healthcare needs of thousands, especially the very elderly. Furthermore, the association highlights that this decision was made without consulting the Zonal Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Local Advisory Committee (LAC), both of which are mandated by CGHS guidelines for any significant service changes. Administratively, this oversight raises serious concerns about due process and accountability within CGHS Mumbai.
Urgent Plea to the Union Health Minister
As the situation worsened, CBWAI sent a letter to Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda, calling for immediate intervention from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Their appeal wasn’t for an instant, permanent fix, but for a compassionate, temporary arrangement: to permit the CGHS Wellness Centre to relocate temporarily to the alternative space offered by SEEPZ, or to a makeshift structure, until a long-term solution could be finalized. The letter underscored a fundamental principle of public administration: that maintaining essential services must always override rigid inter-departmental procedures.
Damodaran remains unconvinced by CGHS Mumbai’s reasons for rejecting the alternative premises. He contends that while invoking procedural requirements and safety compliance may be technically correct, it disregards the practical realities. Many CGHS dispensaries across India operate from less-than-ideal buildings, often as temporary solutions. Beneficiaries perceive this as administrative caution being prioritized above patient welfare. “What truly concerns people,” Damodaran states, “is that this refusal seems less about genuine safety concerns and more about evading the responsibility to guarantee uninterrupted healthcare.”
The controversy escalated when Priyesh Shah, an IRS officer who is also the Joint Secretary of the Western India Zone for CBWAI, sent a strongly worded letter to high-ranking CGHS officials. Shah, speaking on behalf of the registered beneficiaries’ association, explicitly stated that ordinary citizens bear the brunt when government institutions are at odds. In his letter, he highlighted that despite SEEPZ needing the original premises for its own operations, it had proactively offered alternative space within its staff quarters and even suggested providing an open plot for a temporary, prefabricated clinic. Both these practical offers, according to Shah, were abruptly turned down by CGHS authorities.
Shah’s letter also challenged the feasibility of CGHS’s proposal to close the wellness center for three months while it sought private rented accommodation. Drawing on his administrative expertise, he detailed the extensive government procedures involved in securing rented property, which include certifications from CPWD and state authorities, internal financial approvals, public advertising, tendering, rent assessment, and final sanction. Shah argued that suggesting this entire process could be completed within three months indicates either a severe misunderstanding of administrative protocols or a concerning underestimation of the impact on patients. His overarching plea was for officials to transcend departmental boundaries and prioritize the collective welfare of the government and its beneficiaries.
Shah further pointed out that SEEPZ authorities had also offered an open plot where CGHS could set up a temporary structure like an Instacabin or Portacabin. Temporary healthcare facilities of this nature are not uncommon in government operations, especially during transitions or emergencies. However, Dr. Geetha Anandan, Additional Director of CGHS Mumbai, formally responded by stating that no such detailed proposal, including information on location, utilities, necessary permissions, or safety compliance, had been officially submitted. She reiterated that CGHS cannot operate from premises considered unsafe or non-compliant.
In an interview with The Probe, Dr. Anandan confirmed the impending closure of the SEEPZ CGHS Wellness Centre in Andheri on February 9, 2026, citing safety concerns regarding the alternative building proposed by SEEPZ. She stated, “I am currently in discussions with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and actively exploring other options. Meanwhile, senior citizens can utilize CGHS Wellness Centres in Kanjurmarg, Santacruz, or Sahar. A permanent relocation could take up to three months, and I am also considering private alternatives.”
This reassurance, however, provides scant comfort to the affected beneficiaries. Speaking to The Probe, Priyesh Shah dismissed the suggested alternative arrangements as impractical. He highlighted that the other CGHS centers are already operating beyond capacity, have restricted hours, and are situated in congested areas, making access and long waiting times significant obstacles. Mumbai’s unique traffic and geographical challenges mean that healthcare access is as much about timely arrival as it is about availability. To expect thousands of additional patients—many of whom are elderly and managing chronic conditions—to simply integrate into already overburdened centers is not a viable solution, but rather a shirking of responsibility.
Ultimately, this situation transcends a simple building dispute. It serves as a crucial test of whether public healthcare systems can respond with empathy and flexibility when rigid administrative procedures clash with human needs. The senior citizens relying on CGHS are not abstract figures; they are real individuals grappling with multiple health issues, restricted mobility, and fixed incomes. Even a temporary disruption to their routine care can lead to severe, compounding health consequences. A government committed to expanding healthcare access must also prove its ability to safeguard vital existing services when faced with inter-institutional friction.