Gujarat Dialysis Programme: Congress Alleges ₹82.57-Crore Contracts Went To Project Officer’s Wife’s Firm
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee has alleged major financial irregularities in the Gujarat Dialysis Programme, claiming that work orders worth ₹82.57 crore were awarded to a company owned by the wife of the programme’s project officer. The allegations, raised by Congress spokesperson Dr Parthivrajsinh Kathwadia, cite observations in a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report.
Kathwadia alleged that Bio Trust Medical Devices, owned by Bina Kiran Parikh, wife of Gujarat Dialysis Programme Project Officer Kiran Parikh, received multiple work orders during the period when Parikh was associated with the programme.
Congress Cites CAG Report Over Conflict Of Interest
According to Kathwadia, Kiran Parikh worked with the Gujarat Dialysis Programme from 2016-17 to 2025-26, initially as a project officer.
He claimed the CAG report identified Bina Kiran Parikh as the owner of Bio Trust Medical Devices based on information available through GST records and emails contained in official files.
Kathwadia alleged that contracts totalling ₹82.57 crore were awarded to the company, raising questions over a possible conflict of interest.
The Congress spokesperson has demanded that the government explain how contracts of such value were awarded without the alleged conflict being detected by officials.
Congress Questions Family Members’ Role
Kathwadia also raised questions over the alleged involvement of other members of the Parikh family in the programme.
He claimed that the organisation's response to the CAG acknowledged the involvement of Kiran Parikh's father and brothers in the project. According to his allegations, some family members held positions linked to important functions, including procurement.
Kathwadia questioned how alleged irregularities involving contracts worth ₹82.57 crore over nearly a decade could have gone unnoticed.
He has demanded that the government identify officials responsible for oversight and disclose whether anyone protected or enabled the alleged conflict of interest.
Sterile Container Purchase Also Under Scrutiny
Kathwadia cited the procurement of sterile containers as another issue highlighted in the CAG report.
According to his account, 40 sterile containers were purchased at a quoted price of ₹5,92,375.67 each, resulting in a total contract value of ₹2.36 crore awarded to Bio Trust Medical Devices as the sole bidder.
He alleged that the tender period, initially set at 21 days, was reduced to 11 days and that the contract was ultimately awarded on the basis of a solitary offer.
Kathwadia said the circumstances surrounding the tender required scrutiny.
Congress Raises Questions Over Missing Purchase Records
The Congress spokesperson further alleged that the CAG found accounts, files and other records relating to the procurement were not made available for examination.
He claimed that AIIMS Nagpur had referred to the procurement as a market survey, but supporting documents for the exercise were not produced.
According to Kathwadia, the CAG also pointed to weaknesses in the procurement process arising from inadequate documentation.
Demand For Action After CAG Findings
Kathwadia said Kiran Parikh joined the Gujarat Dialysis Programme as a technical officer in 2014 and was subsequently appointed project officer in 2018.
He questioned whether alleged financial irregularities of such magnitude could be addressed merely through the resignation or dismissal of employees.
The Congress has demanded disclosure of the roles of officials responsible for the programme and those allegedly involved in the procurement process. It has also called for strict action based on the CAG findings and registration of a criminal complaint if the investigation establishes wrongdoing.
The allegations are based on Congress's interpretation of the CAG observations. The concerned government authorities and individuals named in the allegations have not been quoted in the supplied material responding to the charges.
