KEM Hospital chemist contract renewal faces dispute

The proposal tabled at the Improvements committee on Thursday seeks to renew the contract of Parel Chemist from August 20, 2026, to August 19, 2031. Two corporators, Congress leader Ashraf Azmi and Meher Mohsin Haider have urged the BMC to invite fresh bids

MUMBAI: A proposal to extend the contract of a medical store at KEM Hospital in Parel for another five years without inviting fresh tenders has come under scrutiny in the BMC. Opposition corporators have alleged that the arrangement increases the financial burden on poor patients due to poor discounts on medicines.

KEM Hospital

The proposal tabled at the Improvements committee on Thursday seeks to renew the contract of Parel Chemist from August 20, 2026, to August 19, 2031. Two corporators, Congress leader Ashraf Azmi and Meher Mohsin Haider have urged the BMC to invite fresh bids.

In a letter to the civic administration, Azmi alleged that patients pay more due to inadequate discounts on medicines. Both corporators allege that the discount offered by this chemist is 12.5% on the MRP, while at other major hospitals, including AIIMS, vendors must offer discounts of at least 30%, said Azmi.

He also questioned the hospital’s practice of procuring medicines from the on-campus pharmacy rather than selecting suppliers through competitive processes based on prices and discounts. He alleged that delays in finalising the list of medicines available free to patients further increase their dependence on the store. Of approximately 2,500 medicines intended to be covered under free-medicine schedules, only around 800 had been finalised, he said.

Haider questioned the legal basis for the proposed renewal. In her representation, she said Clause 25(iii) of the existing contract allows an extension to be considered subject to satisfactory performance but does not give the contractor an automatic right to another term.

Haider has sought an independent audit of discounts provided between 2021 and 2026, a comparative market study and an independent valuation of the premises to determine whether the proposed terms maximise public benefit.

The proposal was not taken up at the improvements committee meeting and will come up for discussion again next month.