Chandigarh, October 27
More questions are being asked in the city about UT administrator S.F Rodrigues’ favourite Medicity project that has hit the headlines.
The controversy has hit the relations between Gen Rodrigues and his adviser Pradip Mehra, who has objected to the rationale of the project as well as the administrator’s decision to part with prime public land on the cheap.
Several queries are being raised in the corridors of the UT administration and in the public domain about the project in which Gen Rodrigues appears to have acted more in emotions than reason. This is evident from the way he has tried to push through the project arbitrarily using his powers and ignoring the advice of the bureaucracy.
The project has been conceived and sought to be imposed on the union territory in a totally non-transparent manner.The main objection that Mehra has reportedly raised in writing is that the 45 acre of prime land in IT Park, near Manimajra, is being sought to be given away on a very low reserve price of Rs 203.70 crore as the upfront fee, which, as compared to the adviser’s official estimates, is close to Rs 2000 crore.
Private estimates of the land in the prized area, which major property developers have been eyeing for years, however, are said to be much more than that. This means that Gen Rodrigues’ proposal could cost the public exchequer a considerable loss in case the project goes through. But there are more questions than merely the price of the land, which is sought to be given away at a paltry price.
A major question, for which no one seems to have an answer, is does the union territory of Chandigarh with its small size and limited population really require a Medicity? This is particularly when the city has top class medical facilities like the PGI, Government Medical College and Hospital in Sector 32, and the multispecialty government hospital in Sector 16. In addition, excellent medical facilities are being provided by several well-known private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics in Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula. Besides, the city has a ratio of 23 hospital beds per 10,000 persons as compared to 10 in Punjab and five in Haryana.
Even with the existing facilities, which are quite impressive as compared to many other metropolitans, a majority of patients are not local. Most of them come from Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. The question being asked is why projects like the Medicity cannot be set up in these states rather than crowd the infrastructure of the city.
The administrator’s scheme for a holistic healthcare, with superspecialty and charitable hospitals, nursing, medical and dental colleges, a centre for treatment of thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia and a terminal care centre, are thus needed more in the states rather than in the UT.
A senior citizen, who has seen the rise of the city, points out on condition on anonymity that there is no accountability and transparency in
the UT, particularly in the absence of an elected body to question how vital decisions are taken about its governance. “There is no one to question the commands of the administrator,” he said.
Referring to the so-called committee of “experts” and “eminent citizens” formed by the administrator, an officer said that they had no legal mandate and were no substitutes for ensuring transparency in such mega projects. “Ultimately, it were the bureaucrats on these bodies who called the shots”,said the officer, adding that barring three doctors - Dr K. K Talwar (PGI), Dr Raj Bahadur (GMCH, Sector 32) and Dr B. N. S Walia (former PGI director) - all the other nine members during the Medicity Committee meeting on July 26, where the controversial reserve fee was decided, were UT officials. Dr Talwar reportedly objected to the PPP model saying that nowhere was there a successful example of a hospital set up in the private sector on land given at concessional rates, meant partly for the service of the poor.
Questions are also being raised about the eligibility criteria for the allotment of the project. A perusal of the criteria makes it evident that the land will be leased to an applicant who is already operating a hospital with a turnover of Rs 100 crore and has accreditation with both the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals (NABH) and the National Accreditation Board of Laboratories (NABL). Preference is to be given to those who have an international tie-up and the applicant must also have as its member a registered charitable trust/society with an eminent board and track record of providing healthcare to poor. Officials admit that there are only a handful of private healthcare players with such a track record and thus the criterion is open to questioning.
Surprisingly, while the eligibility criteria makes experience in running a hospital mandatory for the applicant, it has no prerequisites for skills in running educational institutions despite the fact that the Medicity proposes to have three colleges- a dental, a nursing and a medical.
Union minister of state for finance and city MP Pawan Kumar Bansal whose relations with the administrator have been under strain, wrote a letter to the union home minister, Shivraj Patil, on May 6 for a re-look at the acquisition and subsequent land disposal policy of the UT administration. He also stated that questions were being asked by a large number of people that in the absence of any democratic forum for discussions, doubts persisted about all UT mega projects.
To be concluded
