An allegation that surgical supplies intended for beneficiaries of the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) were improperly issued and sold from Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-run SVP Hospital has raised questions about inventory controls, patient identification and administrative oversight. The report supplied by Sandesh says the equipment involved was valued at approximately Rs 39.78 lakh and that eight doctors came under scrutiny.
The report alleges that surgical items allocated for poor and needy patients under PMJAY were obtained through the misuse of patient names or identity cards. It further says that one doctor admitted to officially issuing around 90 surgical drapes. The report does not identify the doctor, provide the alleged admission, or specify the date and authority before which it was recorded.
According to the report, the alleged irregularity came to light during a preliminary inquiry into the hospital’s handling of PMJAY-related surgical supplies. It describes the issue as involving the unauthorised removal and sale of equipment, but does not provide copies of stock registers, issue records, audit findings, police complaints or other documentary evidence establishing the alleged transaction.
The reported value of the supplies places the matter beyond a routine stock discrepancy. If confirmed, the case would involve questions about how hospital inventory was approved, issued, recorded and reconciled, particularly where supplies are linked to a publicly funded health programme. The report, however, does not establish whether the stated value represents the purchase cost, the value recorded in hospital accounts or an estimated market value.
The allegations also raise questions about the use of beneficiary identification. PMJAY-linked treatment and supplies depend on patient records and eligibility documentation. The report says that identity cards belonging to patients or other people were allegedly misused to obtain the surgical items, but it does not state how the identities were accessed, whether the affected individuals were contacted, or whether the alleged entries were matched against hospital treatment records.
The report says that eight doctors are under suspicion, but it does not identify them or clarify whether they are accused of issuing supplies, approving records, receiving equipment or participating in a sale. It also does not establish whether any administrative employees, vendors or intermediaries were examined as part of the preliminary inquiry.
A further concern raised by the report is the alleged absence of criminal or legal action despite the discovery of the suspected irregularities. It says that SVP Hospital’s administration had not initiated such action at the time of publication. No response from the hospital administration, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the PMJAY authority or the police is included in the supplied material.
The case therefore remains an allegation requiring verification rather than an established finding of fraud. The key documents needed to establish what happened would include the hospital’s inventory and issue registers, PMJAY beneficiary records, internal inquiry findings, procurement and valuation records, and any complaint or disciplinary proceedings initiated by the hospital or municipal authorities.
The immediate institutional question is whether SVP Hospital and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation will publicly clarify the status of the inquiry, protect the records connected with the alleged issues and state whether disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been filed. The supplied report does not confirm any next procedural step or official action.
