No official communication from H&FW department nor contractor; Chungtia Students’ Union issues 5-day deadline
The Chungtia Students’ Union (CSU) has issued a five-day deadline to the Department of Health & Family Welfare (H&FW) after a structural inspection of the ongoing 50-bedded Integrated AYUSH Hospital at Sabangya, Chungtia village, found “poor and doubtful” quality in one of the beams and yet neither the department nor the contractor has responded.
Three structural tests – Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, Rebound Hammer, and Core Cut Sampling -were conducted on September 11, 2025, following complaints and an earlier ultimatum from the CSU and the Chungtia Village Council (CVC) over sub-standard construction.
The test report was handed over to the CSU by the Executive Engineer, Medical Engineering Division, Kohima on September 29, according to Zaongtoshi, convenor of CSU. Since then, the union has received no official communication.
According to the report, one of the two beams tested was rated “poor and doubtful”, while columns were deemed “satisfactory.” Zaongtoshi called the report “incomplete” and “unprofessional,” adding that the union was “totally unsatisfied with the result.”
He said the CSU would issue a five-day deadline, warning that if there was no positive response, they “will take our own course of necessary actions, for which we will not be held responsible.”
The union also noted that the joint sitting including the contractor as promised by the department after the inspection has not taken place. It may be noted that the joint inspection team included representatives from CSU and CVC; Sangpangchang, EAC Ongpangkong South; Dr Takosunep, Deputy CMO Mokokchung; Longkai, SDO (Engineering Wing), Department of Health and Family Welfare; and Santanu Dey, site engineer representing KC Infra.
“We have even tried communicating via phone. On the first day, the SDO said they would discuss the issue, but we have heard nothing since then. From the second day onward, our calls were ignored,” Zaongtoshi said.
Highlighting safety concerns, he added: “We only tested three beams, and if one is poor and doubtful, what about the beams in 27 rooms? The rebound hammer test was average, the ultrasonic test flagged a beam, and the core cut test, though termed satisfactory, is highly doubtful because no core specimen evidence was provided. The report is unofficial and incomplete. We are totally unsatisfied with the result.”