Wife’s urgent letter exposes extreme duty hours and burnout among cardiology resident

What prompted the appeal

A letter from the wife of a first-year DM Cardiology resident at GB Pant Hospital has again drawn attention to the long-standing issue of excessive working hours and mental health strain among Indian resident doctors. The letter, written by Dr. Rishu Sinha on behalf of her husband, Dr. Amit Kumar, asks the cardiology department to pause acceptance of his resignation and provide a one-month cooling period with humane working hours and counselling before any final decision is taken.

In the correspondence addressed to GB Pant Hospital’s Cardiology Department, Dr. Sinha described a pattern of sleep deprivation, burnout and humiliation attributed to repeated 36-hour continuous duties. According to the letter, these conditions led Dr. Kumar to submit his resignation on 23.10.2025 from a superspeciality cardiology course that he had long considered his career goal.

Core demands in the letter

Dr. Sinha asked the department to: (1) institute a cooling period of one month during which her husband would be assigned humane duty hours, and (2) provide appropriate counselling before accepting his resignation. The letter warned that accepting the resignation without counselling could further damage his mental health and that a short, restorative work pattern and professional support might help him recover from the trauma he experienced since joining the course.

The letter also pointed to the National Task Force Report 2024, highlighting institutional concern with students’ mental health arising from excessive working hours, and called on GB Pant Hospital to take responsibility for the consequences of prolonged duty periods and ensure the well-being of trainees.

Broader evidence of the problem: surveys and rules

Survey data reflecting the scale

The issue raised by Dr. Sinha is consistent with recent survey findings collected by medichelpline. Responses from 1,031 medical trainees across India showed that 62% reported working more than 72 hours per week, and a majority indicated they do not receive a weekly day off. An overwhelming 86% of respondents said excessive duty hours are harming their mental health and negatively affecting patient safety. These figures reinforce the concerns articulated in the individual letter and demonstrate that this is a systemic problem affecting a large portion of training doctors.

1992 Central Residency Scheme versus reality

Reasonable working hours for resident doctors have been a longstanding demand. After judicial attention, the Central Government introduced the Central Residency Scheme, 1992, which set standards on duty hours: continuous active duty for resident doctors should not normally exceed 12 hours a day, and residents should be allowed one weekly holiday by rotation, subject to exigencies of work. The scheme’s intent was to limit excessive continuous duty, but enforcement has been inconsistent. The persistence of long duty stretches—cited in Dr. Sinha’s letter and echoed in the national survey—suggests that the 1992 directives often remain unimplemented in practice.

Institutional response, RTI filings and legal steps

RTI attempts and hospital silence

According to the letter and follow-up statements, Dr. Sinha filed two Right to Information (RTI) applications with the hospital seeking details about working hour rules and the duties performed by Dr. Amit Kumar. She reported that neither RTI received the required response within the statutory timeframe, which she described as reflecting a troubling disregard for the law and the residency rules. In her words, institutions that ignore both the 1992 residency guidelines and the RTI Act raise serious questions about compliance with the law of the land.

Speaking to medichelpline, Dr. Sinha reiterated that her husband had repeatedly worked 36-hour shifts over four months and that the cumulative mental trauma and inhumane conditions compelled him to resign despite his strong academic background and the personal effort to secure a superspeciality seat.

Legal and organized advocacy already underway

This case comes amid broader legal and advocacy activity. Earlier in the year, the United Doctors’ Front (UDF) filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court challenging what it described as exploitative and unconstitutional working conditions imposed on resident doctors across the country. The PIL seeks judicial intervention on inhumane duty hours. The issue has also attracted attention from medical associations and regulatory forums that have repeatedly raised concerns about trainee welfare and patient safety linked to excessive hours.

Responses from medical bodies and next steps

Professional associations express concern

The Delhi Medical Association has described imposition of prolonged shifts on residents as “pathetic and inhumane,” warning that such practices not only undermine the well-being of young doctors but also impair the quality of healthcare delivery. The association forwarded Dr. Sinha’s letter to the Director of the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi, requesting appropriate action.

Dr. Sinha has indicated that she intends to visit the hospital in person to press the matter and has not ruled out taking legal recourse if institutional responses remain inadequate. Her concerns emphasize two linked dimensions: the immediate requirement to safeguard an individual trainee’s health and the systemic imperative to align practice with existing residency rules and legal frameworks.

Why this matters for patients and the health system

The facts presented—individual resignation, repeated 36-hour shifts, the survey showing wide prevalence of excessive hours, and non-compliance with 1992 residency guidelines—point to a risk that extends beyond individual distress. Long continuous duty leads to sleep deprivation and burnout, which are associated with decreased attentiveness and clinical judgement. When trainees are chronically overworked, both their health and patient safety are compromised. Addressing these problems through enforced duty-hour policies, accessible counselling, transparent record-keeping and institutional accountability is central to preserving trainee welfare and sustaining healthcare quality.

The case at GB Pant Hospital, as articulated by Dr. Sinha, has reignited discussion on enforcement of duty-hour standards and the mechanisms by which hospitals and authorities respond to formal requests for information and remedial action. The coming days will show whether the institution implements the requested cooling-off measures and counselling or whether further legal steps and policy enforcement will be required to ensure resident well-being.