Mumbai’s Healthcare Crisis: Elderly Patients at Risk as CGHS Centre Faces Closure
An ongoing administrative disagreement between two government bodies is jeopardizing a vital public healthcare facility in Mumbai. This dispute threatens the health and well-being of over 2,500 senior citizens. The conflict involves the Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ), managed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. What should have been a straightforward inter-departmental resolution has devolved into a serious governance crisis, leaving CGHS beneficiaries to suffer the repercussions.
The heart of this issue is the CGHS Wellness Centre located in SEEPZ (Andheri East), Mumbai, a facility that has served government employees, pensioners, and their dependents for more than three decades. Despite operating continuously for more than 30 years in space provided by SEEPZ, the center is now slated for closure on February 9, 2026. SEEPZ issued an eviction notice, citing its own need for the building. The Additional Director of CGHS Mumbai then escalated the matter to the CGHS Directorate in New Delhi. Rather than a quick resolution, the situation became entangled in lengthy bureaucratic delays.
T.K. Damodaran, General Secretary of the CGHS Beneficiaries Welfare Association of India (CBWAI), stated that the CGHS Directorate had presented two clear options. The first was to formally find an alternative building—either through coordination with the Maharashtra government or by publicly seeking private accommodations. The second was to ask SEEPZ for permission to keep the Wellness Centre in its current location until a suitable alternative was found. Damodaran highlighted that SEEPZ, despite issuing the eviction notice, had even offered a nearby alternative building. However, CGHS Mumbai rejected this offer due to what they termed “technical grounds.” For elderly patients who have relied on this center for decades, this rejection is hard to understand. “For senior citizens,” Damodaran emphasized, “having a wellness centre matters more than its polish. Even a temporary arrangement would have preserved continuity of care.”
The Critical Role of CGHS Wellness Centres
To grasp the significance of this closure, it’s essential to understand the function of a CGHS Wellness Centre. These centers are far from minor services; they form the very foundation of outpatient healthcare for central government employees and pensioners. They offer daily consultations, distribute medicines for both chronic and acute ailments, provide referrals to network hospitals, deliver basic diagnostic support, and ensure continuous treatment for common conditions like diabetes, hypertension, cardiac issues, respiratory illnesses, and arthritis – ailments that disproportionately affect the elderly. For many older beneficiaries, CGHS isn’t just convenient; it’s often their primary, and sometimes only, affordable connection to the healthcare system. Interrupting this access, even for a short period, can lead to missed doses, delayed diagnoses, and preventable medical crises.
Given these critical functions, the Chief Medical Officer’s decision on February 2, 2026, to announce the SEEPZ CGHS Wellness Centre’s closure from February 9 has sparked widespread concern. The CGHS Beneficiaries Welfare Association of India has condemned this move as unilateral and arbitrary, asserting that it disregards the urgent healthcare needs of thousands of beneficiaries, especially the very elderly. Crucially, the association notes that this decision was made without consulting the Zonal Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Local Advisory Committee (LAC) – bodies whose input is mandatory under CGHS regulations for any significant service interruption. Administratively, this oversight raises serious questions about proper procedure and accountability within CGHS Mumbai.
Urgent Appeal to the Union Health Minister
As the situation worsened, the CBWAI appealed directly to Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda, imploring the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to step in. Their request wasn’t for an immediate, permanent solution, but for a compassionate, temporary arrangement. They urged that the CGHS Wellness Centre be allowed to temporarily relocate to the alternative premises offered by SEEPZ, or even to a makeshift structure, until a long-term facility could be secured. This appeal underscored a fundamental principle of public administration: that the uninterrupted provision of essential services must always outweigh rigid inter-departmental protocols.
Damodaran expressed skepticism regarding CGHS Mumbai’s objections to the alternative site. He contended that while “procedural requirements” and “safety compliance” might be technically valid concerns, they fail to acknowledge the on-the-ground reality. Throughout India, many CGHS dispensaries operate from less-than-ideal buildings, often as temporary setups. For the beneficiaries, it feels as though administrative caution is being prioritized over their actual health needs. “What truly concerns people,” Damodaran noted, “is that this refusal seems less about genuine safety and more about shirking the responsibility to provide continuous care.”
The controversy escalated further when Priyesh Shah, an IRS officer serving as Additional Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai and also Joint Secretary of CBWAI’s Western India Zone, sent a strongly worded letter to high-ranking CGHS officials. Writing clearly as a representative of the registered beneficiaries’ association, Shah laid out the problem in no uncertain terms: when government institutions clash, it is always the ordinary citizens who bear the brunt. In his letter, Shah highlighted that although SEEPZ needed the premises for its own use, it had offered alternative space within its staff quarters and even suggested providing an empty plot for a temporary structure made of prefabricated cabins. According to Shah, CGHS authorities outright rejected these proposals.
Shah’s letter also challenged the feasibility of CGHS’s plan to close the wellness center for a “three-month” period while they searched for private rental space. Leveraging his administrative background, he detailed the extensive governmental process for securing rented accommodation: certifications from the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and state authorities, internal financial approvals, public advertising, tendering, rent assessment, and final sanction. Shah argued that proposing such a timeline for completion in just three months either betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of these procedures or a concerning underestimation of the impact on patients. His overarching plea was for officials to transcend inter-departmental boundaries and prioritize the collective well-being of the government and its citizens.
As Shah pointed out, SEEPZ authorities had also suggested an empty plot where CGHS could set up a temporary structure, such as an Instacabin or Portacabin. Temporary healthcare facilities like these are not uncommon in government operations, especially during transitions or emergencies. However, in her official reply, Dr. Geetha Anandan, Additional Director of CGHS Mumbai, stated that no formal proposal with sufficient details regarding location, utilities, permissions, and safety compliance had been officially submitted. She reiterated that CGHS could not operate from premises considered unsafe or non-compliant.
In an interview, Dr. Anandan confirmed that the SEEPZ CGHS Wellness Centre in Andheri would indeed close on February 9, 2026. She expressed concerns about the safety of the alternative building proposed by SEEPZ. “I am currently in discussions with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and exploring other possibilities. In the meantime, senior citizens can visit CGHS Wellness Centres in Kanjurmarg, Santacruz, or Sahar,” she stated. “A permanent relocation could take up to three months, and I am also considering private options.”
However, this assurance brought little relief to the beneficiaries. Priyesh Shah, speaking to The Probe, deemed the suggested alternative arrangements impractical. He highlighted that the other CGHS centers mentioned are already struggling with overcrowding, operate for limited hours, and are situated in bustling areas, presenting significant challenges for access and wait times. Shah emphasized that in Mumbai, healthcare accessibility is heavily influenced by distance and travel time, not just availability. Expecting thousands of new patients—many of whom are elderly and managing chronic conditions—to be absorbed into already overburdened centers is not a viable solution, but rather an avoidance of responsibility.
Ultimately, this isn’t just a disagreement about real estate. It’s a critical examination of whether public healthcare systems can respond with empathy and practicality when bureaucratic processes clash. The senior citizens who rely on CGHS are not statistics; they are individuals coping with various illnesses, restricted mobility, and tight budgets. Even a temporary disruption to their routine care can lead to severe, compounding problems. A government committed to broadening healthcare access must also prove its ability to safeguard existing vital services when internal institutional conflicts emerge.