An 83-year-old patient with a fractured foot fell off a stretcher after being mishandled by an ambulance driver on the way to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 (GMCH-32), but the UT Administration has distanced itself from the incident, maintaining that the driver was from a private ambulance service.The March 28 incident, captured on CCTV, has exposed a gap in accountability when it comes to private emergency transport, with no authority taking responsibility for oversight or action.The patient was being transported from Mohali after his condition worsened. According to the family’s complaint, the driver held the stretcher with one hand while shifting him, causing it to tip over. This led the elderly man to fall unconscious.Despite the ambulance being arranged after the family approached GMCH-32 for help, the UT health department has maintained that it has no jurisdiction over the driver.The Chandigarh Administration’s Director (Health Services) Suman Singh said, “I did see the complaint. In fact, the driver, I am told, is a private ambulance driver. He isn’t our government driver.”She said Chandigarh has 16 ambulances, including two advanced life-support vehicles, while the rest are basic ambulances staffed with a driver, an emergency worker and a helper. On training, she said drivers are provided sessions in first aid, CPR and patient handling every three months.However, when asked about action against the driver seen in the CCTV footage, she reiterated that he was not part of the government fleet.Story continues below this adThe response has raised questions about who regulates private ambulances that are often accessed through public hospitals in emergencies.The complaint was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner who sent it to the Director of Health Services. It states that the family first tried emergency numbers 112 and 108, but received no response. They then approached GMCH-32 staff, who connected them with the ambulance driver.According to the complaint, the driver was unable to assist in shifting the patient from the bed to the stretcher, forcing family members to step in. While moving the stretcher out of the house, the driver allegedly handled it “so carelessly” that it overturned.The patient’s daughter further alleged that while lifting the patient again, the driver grabbed him from the fractured area, indicating a lack of basic training. They also claimed the driver used abusive language during the journey.Story continues below this ad“It is evident that this individual is neither properly trained nor fit to handle patients or operate an ambulance. Such behaviour puts vulnerable lives at serious risk,” the complaint states.The family has sought an inquiry into the driver’s training, licensing and permit, and has called for action to prevent such incidents from happening to other patients.Yet, even as the complaint highlights alleged negligence, the pathway to accountability remains unclear.Under existing rules, ambulance drivers must hold a commercial driving licence, meet medical fitness standards, and are expected to have basic training in first aid, CPR and patient handling. They are also required to assist in transferring patients and coordinate with hospital staff.Story continues below this adIf misconduct is established, the transport department can suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. However, such action depends on an inquiry by district authorities.In practice, this creates a grey area: while hospitals may facilitate access to ambulances, and health departments prescribe training norms, enforcement in the case of private operators appears non-existent.The incident has also brought into focus the limited public ambulance infrastructure in the city. With 16 ambulances serving a population of over 12 lakh, patients often rely on private operators in emergencies.For families, however, the distinction offers little reassurance.When a patient is injured during transport, and the service is accessed through a public hospital, the question remains: who is accountable?For now, the answer appears to be — no one.