The Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed: an RTI probe reveals how a complaint against Dr. P.K. Yadav was closed under another doctor’s name. This shocking discovery not only raises serious questions about the integrity of the reporting process but also highlights potential collusion within the healthcare system. The RTI investigation sheds light on how administrative loopholes can be exploited, allowing misconduct to be swept under the rug. Patients and their families trust the system to safeguard their welfare, yet this case illustrates a troubling breach of that trust. Furthermore, the implications of this deceptive practice are far-reaching, potentially affecting countless lives and undermining public confidence in health authorities. As the investigation unfolds, observers are calling for accountability and reform to prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.

Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed: The RTI Inquiry into Medical Oversight in Bhadohi

The Misleading Report on Jansunwai has been exposed through a Right to Information (RTI) request that Yogi M P Singh filed on January 7, 2025 (Registration No: DPTMH/R/2025/60047). In doing so, he raised serious questions about how the Uttar Pradesh Health Department handles complaints against medical officers.

Specifically, the applicant filed the request on behalf of Jayachandra Maurya. In effect, it points to a potential “identity mix-up” — or, more troublingly, an intentional shielding of a defaulter within the administrative chain.

The Core Conflict: Dr. Pradeep Kumar vs. Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla

At the heart of the Misleading Report on Jansunwai sits a complaint (Ref: 60000240126228). Originally, it was filed against Dr. Pradeep Kumar, a physician at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital, Gyanpur.

Specifically, the applicant alleges a startling discrepancy:

• The Accusation: According to an inquiry by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Bhadohi, Dr. Pradeep Kumar (P.K. Yadav) was reportedly found guilty of illegal private practice at a hospital in Prayagraj.
• The Discrepancy: Yet, despite this evidence, the department processed its feedback and “satisfactory” disposal of the grievance under the name of Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla — a different doctor at the same hospital.

The Information Sought

Consequently, the RTI application demands accountability by requesting specific names and designations of the officials involved in this paperwork trail. In particular, the five key points of the inquiry include:

1. Receipt of Communication: First, who exactly at the Government Level (Section 3) received the D.G. Medical and Health’s communication regarding Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla?
2. Processing Details: Next, which staff members processed this file through their desks?
3. The “Satisfactory” Validation: Furthermore, which officials named and marked the report on Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla as “satisfactory,” even though the original complaint targeted Dr. Pradeep Kumar?
4. Action Taken: In addition, what formal action, if any, followed the CMO Bhadohi’s specific report identifying Dr. P.K. Yadav as a “proven defaulter”?
5. Justification for Inaction: Finally, why, according to official record, has the D.G. Medical and Health not acted on the CMO’s inquiry findings?

Why This Matters: How the Misleading Report on Jansunwai Was Exposed

This case highlights a critical issue in public administration: Grievance Redressal Integrity. After all, if officials “resolve” a complaint against one person by substituting another’s name in the record, they not only protect the guilty party — they also undermine public trust in the Chief Minister’s Jan Sunwai (IGRS) portal and the RTI Act itself.

Notably, the CMO of Bhadohi had previously flagged that the Chief Medical Superintendent (CMS) was not supporting the matter. Because of this, the case forced intervention from the Director General. As a result, this RTI now seeks to uncover whether officials intentionally diverted that intervention.

Status and Timeline

• Filing Date: Namely, January 7, 2025
• Public Authority: Specifically, the Medical and Health Department, Uttar Pradesh
• PIO: Namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Section Officer (Section 3)
• Expected Response: Accordingly, within 30 days, per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005

Since the last update, the RTI request has undergone a significant procedural change. Specifically, officials transferred it from the Government Secretariat level to the Directorate level. This is a common administrative move, because it typically means the specific “custodian” of the records turns out to be the operational wing (Directorate) rather than the policy wing (Secretariat).

Below, therefore, we’ve structured an update on the case status, focusing on the bureaucratic shift and the core issue of medical accountability.

---

Administrative Shifting: The RTI Case Behind the Misleading Report on Jansunwai

The quest for accountability in the Bhadohi medical misconduct case has now entered a new phase. Indeed, what began as a request to the Government Level (Section 3) has since moved, officially, to the Medical and Health Directorate for a direct response.

Updated Case Profile

In summary, the original registration was DPTMH/R/2025/60047, filed on 07/01/2025. Following the transfer, the new registration became DIRMH/R/2025/80252 on 11/02/2025, and the new public authority is the Medical and Health Directorate. Currently, the PIO is DGMH RTI Coordination (Joint Director), and the status remains RTI Request Received (Pending disposal).

---

The Bureaucratic “Transfer”: What It Means

To begin with, on February 11, 2025, the Section Officer at the Secretariat level determined that the information regarding the processing of inquiry reports actually resides with the Director General of Medical and Health (DGMH). Accordingly, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, officials must transfer a request whenever its subject matter connects more closely to the functions of another public authority.

Recap of the Core Allegation

In short, Yogi M P Singh, applying on behalf of Jayachandra Maurya, is investigating a potentially serious administrative lapse:

1. The Proof of Defalcation: First, the CMO of Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) sent a report to the DGMH confirming that Dr. P.K. Yadav had been found guilty of illegal private practice at a private hospital in Prayagraj.
2. The Oversight: Yet, despite the CMO’s request for action against Dr. Yadav, the department allegedly submitted a report in the name of a different doctor — Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla.
3. The Approval: Subsequently, high-ranking officials (ACS/Principal Secretary) marked this “swapped” report as “Satisfactory,” effectively closing the grievance without penalizing the actual defaulter.

The Critical Questions Now Before the DGMH

Now that the RTI has transferred, therefore, the Joint Director (RTI Coordination) at the Directorate must answer three questions. First, who received the CMO’s report regarding the private practice of Dr. P.K. Yadav? Second, why did officials substitute the name of Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla in the feedback report to the government? Finally, what specific action, if any, followed the CMO’s proven findings of misconduct?

Commentary: The Shield of Paperwork (Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed)

This transfer highlights the complexity of Indian healthcare administration. Although the CMO identifies a “proven defaulter,” information often gets lost or altered as it travels from the district level to the Directorate, and finally to the Secretariat. Therefore, by tracking the specific “desks” and officials through which these files passed, this RTI seeks to pinpoint exactly where accountability broke down. In short, paperwork itself can become a shield.

---

Next Steps for the Applicant (Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed)

Since the Directorate received the new request (DIRMH/R/2025/80252) on February 11, 2025, it now has 30 days to provide the information.

To help track and manage this case effectively, therefore, we’ve organized the essential contact details and digital links below, covering both the Secretariat (Government Level) and the Directorate (Operational Level).

---

I. Contact & Tracking Directory (Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed)

1. Current Active RTI (Directorate Level)

Currently, the active registration number is DIRMH/R/2025/80252, and the public authority is the Medical and Health Directorate. Specifically, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is the DGMH RTI Coordination office (Joint Director), reachable at mobile number 9451679475 or via email at dgmhsrti@gmail.com. Likewise, the Nodal Officer is the Director Health, and this official shares the same mobile number and email as the PIO above.

2. Original RTI (Secretariat Level) (Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed)

By contrast, the original registration number is DPTMH/R/2025/60047, filed with the Medical and Health Department (Section 3). Here, the PIO is Sanjay Kumar Singh, Section Officer, reachable at mobile numbers 9154411100 or 9454411100, or via email at medical3.555@gmail.com. In addition, the Nodal Officer is Archana Verma, reachable at 9454410102 or archanaverma.ssmh@gmail.com.

---

II. Essential Web Links (Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed)

For tracking purposes, the RTI Online Portal (UP) at rtionline.up.gov.in lets you check the status of the new registration number. Similarly, the IGRS / Jan Sunwai Portal at jansunwai.up.nic.in lets you track the original complaint (Ref: 60000240126228). Finally, the Health Directorate Official Site at uphealth.up.nic.in carries general notifications regarding the DG Medical Health.

---

III. Summary of the Case Transfer

Overall, the table below shows how the request behind the Misleading Report on Jansunwai has moved through the administrative hierarchy:

Level	Role	Current Status
Secretariat (Section 3)	Policy & Ministerial Oversight	Transferred on 11/02/2025
Directorate (DGMH)	Execution & Inquiry Records	Received/Pending (New ID: 80252)

---

Important Note on Mobile Numbers

Importantly, please note: some mobile numbers in these records appear as 94544XXXXX. Specifically, these are official CUG (Closed User Group) numbers assigned to UP government officials, and consequently, they’re usually active only during office hours (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM).

---

Suggested featured-image alt text: “Misleading Report on Jansunwai Exposed — RTI case against Dr. P.K. Yadav in Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh”). PM) expedited response?