Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital: CBI apprehends two in bribe case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it apprehended a medicine specialist and a contractual nursing-orderly supervisor at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital in Delhi’s Pitampura during a trap operation on 21 October 2026 over an alleged Rs 1 lakh bribe linked to an awarded tender.

The specialist also served as the hospital’s nodal officer for outsourcing, according to the CBI’s statement. The agency alleged that the doctor demanded money to ensure the tender was not cancelled, facilitate timely clearance of bills and prevent unnecessary objections from being raised in the complainant’s file.

The Tribune identified the accused as Harender Kumar, Specialist (Medicine) and Nodal Officer Outsourcing in the hospital’s Medicine Department, and Pradeep Kumar, Supervisor Nursing Orderly (Contractual). The CBI statement identifies both by their posts but does not name them.

According to the agency, it registered the case against the specialist on 21 October 2026 and laid a trap the same day. A trap is an operation arranged to catch an alleged bribe transaction as it takes place. The CBI said the specialist demanded and accepted Rs 1 lakh from the complainant through the contractual supervisor, after which both were apprehended.

The agency’s account places the alleged demand with the specialist and describes the supervisor as the person through whom the payment was accepted. It does not set out a separate demand allegedly made by the supervisor. These remain the investigating agency’s allegations, not findings of guilt by a court.

Payment allegedly sought to protect an awarded tender

The CBI described three things allegedly offered in exchange for the payment: keeping an existing tender from being cancelled, clearing bills on time and avoiding unnecessary “red flags” in the complainant’s file. In this context, red flags refers to objections or issues raised during the handling of that file.

The distinction between obtaining a tender and retaining one is important to the allegation. The CBI’s statement concerns a tender that had already been awarded. It does not allege that the Rs 1 lakh was the price demanded for selecting the complainant in the original tender process.

The Tribune’s opening account described the bribe as being sought in exchange for awarding a tender. Its subsequent account, however, gave the more specific allegation set out by the CBI: that the money was demanded to prevent cancellation of an awarded tender and facilitate the handling of bills and the complainant’s file.

Neither the agency’s statement nor that report establishes that cancellation proceedings had actually begun, that bills had already been withheld or that objections had been entered in the file. The documented allegation is about the demand and the favours allegedly offered, rather than a finding that each threatened administrative action had occurred.

The CBI statement does not identify the tender, its value, the services covered or the complainant. It also does not describe the contract’s duration or payment terms. The Rs 1 lakh figure is the alleged bribe amount, not the disclosed value of the contract or any outstanding bills.

Doctor also held an outsourcing role

The specialist’s additional designation places an administrative role alongside his clinical post. Outsourcing means obtaining services through an outside provider rather than supplying them entirely through an institution’s own employees. The CBI identifies the doctor as the nodal officer for that function but does not describe his delegated powers over tender cancellation or bill clearance.

The supervisor’s contractual status is also expressly identified in the agency’s account. However, neither that designation nor the doctor’s outsourcing role establishes that the disputed tender concerned nursing orderlies. The statement does not connect the contract to any particular category of outsourced workers.

Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital’s official website describes it as a 325-bed multispecialty hospital whose main objective is to provide free basic healthcare. It says the institution was established to provide primary and secondary treatment for an estimated population of 10 lakh to 20 lakh in the surrounding urban area, including areas bordering Delhi’s North West district.

That population figure describes the hospital’s intended service area, not a count of patients affected by this case. The CBI’s allegation concerns tender-related administration, not a payment demanded from a patient for treatment. Its statement reports no interruption to clinical services arising from the operation.

Custody details and responses remain unreported

Deccan Chronicle reported, citing the CBI, that both accused were being interrogated following their apprehension. That describes the immediate aftermath of the operation; it does not establish a later custody or court outcome.

The Tribune described the action as an arrest, while the CBI statement used “apprehended”. The agency’s statement does not specify the statutory provisions invoked, identify a court hearing or provide a remand order determining custody.

The accounts contain no response from either accused or the hospital administration to the allegations. Whether the tender remained in force and whether the complainant’s bills were subsequently cleared are also not stated.