Two-Day Doctors’ Strike in Haryana Disrupts Patient Care — Gurugram Hospitals Among Worst Hit

The trigger — unmet demands, broken assurances

The strike was initiated after repeated assurances from the state government failed to translate into policy changes. Doctors complain that the promised revised ACP structure and direct recruitment of senior medical officers have been delayed indefinitely, creating stagnation in promotions and affecting morale. According to union leaders, many doctors have spent years waiting to be promoted; some junior doctors have also been functioning in senior-level roles without official status or commensurate pay.

With mounting grievances and no clear timeline from authorities, the Haryana Civil Medical Services Association (HCMSA) decided to call off duties across the state. More than 3,000 doctors participated, ranging from house-officers to consultants. The strike was launched despite warnings that it would severely affect public health services, but union leaders said it was a last resort to force action.

Impact on public hospitals — patients bearing the brunt

In Gurugram government hospitals and health-centres, the strike’s impact was stark. Services such as emergency care, critical surgeries, routine outpatient consultations, post-mortems, and medico-legal documentation came to a near-standstill. Hospitals could operate only minimal staff — mostly paramedics, junior staff, and outsourced personnel with limited capacity. Many patients seeking care were turned away or asked to return later; those in need of urgent attention waited for hours or shifted to private clinics.

Accidents, childbirth emergencies, and chronic-disease patients requiring follow-up care were among the most affected. Many expressed frustration over long delays or refusal of service. In some cases, oragnisations able to perform small procedures or generate medical certificates managed to cope — but with severely reduced capacity. Several relatives of patients seeking critical care voiced anger, declaring that they were left stranded at a time when services were most needed.

Government response — contingency measures, limited assurances

The state health administration attempted to mitigate the fallout by deploying substitute medical personnel drawn from medical colleges, ESI hospitals, and AYUSH wings. The Directorate General of Health Services, Haryana said contingency plans were in place to ensure minimal essential services such as emergency care and critical treatment. Some hospitals continued limited OPD services, but without full diagnostics, lab work or follow-ups. Despite these efforts, the impact was palpable — patients requiring surgery or extensive diagnostics were asked to visit private facilities or wait until the strike ends.

Officials acknowledged the doctors’ grievances and said the government remains open to dialogue. But they also warned that medical infrastructure could collapse under a perpetual strike, especially given Haryana’s growing population and rising demand for health services. The administration urged doctors to return to work and engage in talks while assuring that proposals are being reviewed internally.

Doctors’ stand — systemic overhaul, not short-term fixes

The HCMSA leadership, including its president and regional heads, argued that the issues go beyond mere pay or perks. They say that a fair ACP structure and proper cadre-strengthening are essential for long-term retention, motivation and quality of healthcare. Many doctors have reportedly left government jobs or avoided rural posting due to lack of clear career progression, affecting overall staffing and patient care across the state. The association insists that without structural reforms, the quality of government healthcare will continue to deteriorate.

Union leaders warned that if their demands are not met, the strike could be extended or further intensified. They emphasised that their fight is not against patients but for a sustainable medical service ecosystem that benefits both doctors and citizens. “We can’t serve effectively if we are stuck in limbo,” said one senior physician representing the association. “For long-term improvement of public health, framework and assurance matter.”

Public reaction — frustration, fear and calls for timely resolution

Among citizens, frustration is widespread. Many feel trapped between needing affordable treatment and being forced to turn to expensive private hospitals. Chronic patients, new mothers, accident victims and economically weaker patients are especially vulnerable. Civil-society groups and citizen forums in Gurugram have urged the government to act fast and ensure basic public health services are not held hostage by administrative inaction. Some have demanded that the government provide interim assurances — including temporary staff increases, faster decision timelines, incentives for rural postings, and better communication to citizens about available services during the strike.

Meanwhile, patient-advocacy groups have highlighted the long-term damage such standoffs cause: loss of trust in public health institutions, increased financial burden on patients, and overburdening of private clinics — which may not be accessible to all socio-economic groups. Several have also demanded that hospitals display clear notices about changed working hours and availability of essential services to avoid confusion and panic.

Longer-term implications — strain on public health system and equity concerns

If doctors’ demands remain unmet, and similar actions recur in future, Haryana’s public health system could be pushed to a breaking point. Already, many rural and semi-urban areas rely heavily on government hospitals for primary care; repeated disruptions could increase morbidity and mortality, especially among vulnerable populations. The strike also highlights deeper systemic issues: insufficient staffing, ambiguous career trajectories, and lack of incentives for long-term commitment.

Healthcare experts warn that without structural changes — including transparent promotions, adequate staffing, accountability and incentive mechanisms — reliance on public health will continue to erode. For citizens without access to private care, this could translate into compromised health outcomes, delayed treatments and increasing inequality. The current strike, though disruptive, could become a turning point — forcing the state to reconsider how it values and treats its medical workforce.

What needs to happen — urgent reforms and stakeholder dialogue

To restore public trust and ensure uninterrupted health services, government and medical associations must return to dialogue — quickly and meaningfully. The state should commit to a clear timeline for ACP reforms and direct recruitment of senior medical officers. Interim staffing solutions and transparent communication to citizens about services during transitions could help reduce disruption. Health-department audits, feedback systems, and monitoring mechanisms would help rebuild confidence among citizens and medical staff alike.

Ultimately, for a rapidly growing state like Haryana — with rising population, migration and urban expansion — a robust, stable, and well-staffed public health system is non-negotiable. The strike should serve as a wake-up call to strengthen institutional capacity, treat medical workforce concerns with urgency, and prioritise public health equity over administrative delays. For now, patients wait — hoping for resolution. The state must act fast.