BMC accused of favouring Navjeevan Blood Bank in 'backdoor' allocation of municipal blood banks

Fresh controversy has erupted within the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) after allegations surfaced that a “backdoor” route is being used to push through the allocation of municipal blood banks in favour of Navjeevan Blood Bank. Instead of placing the proposal before the Standing Committee – where it was expected to face stiff opposition and possible rejection – the civic administration has allegedly tabled it before the Improvement Committee, raising questions over transparency and procedural propriety.AdvertisementMumbai Mirror had earlier reported how plasma collected at Cooper Hospital was allegedly transported out for commercial fractionation, triggering probes by the Food and Drug Administration and the BMC and raising concerns over the use of public healthcare infrastructure. The controversy later widened to include scrutiny of other blood bank operations linked to Navjeevan Medical Relief and Research Foundation. Despite the ongoing cloud over the Cooper plasma case, a proposal has now been moved before the Improvement Committee to hand over additional civic blood banks to Navjeevan, prompting allegations that the operator is being favoured through a backdoor approval process.Five banks on PPP basisAccording to sources in the civic body, the proposal involves allotting five municipal blood banks on a public-private partnership (PPP) basis. Four are likely to go to Navjeevan Blood Bank, while one may be awarded to Chakreshwar Blood Bank. The move has become contentious because Navjeevan is allegedly already in default, raising questions over how it continues to secure major civic contracts despite pending compliance issues.“This is nothing but a backdoor approval mechanism,” a senior civic official said on condition of anonymity. “Such an important healthcare proposal involving public money and critical services should be scrutinised by the Standing Committee. Routing it through the Improvement Committee appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid questions and resistance.”The controversy has revived memories of the earlier Cath Lab approval row, where a major healthcare proposal was allegedly routed through a less-scrutinised committee structure after facing opposition resistance. Civic insiders claim a similar pattern is now being repeated with the blood bank proposal. Opposition leaders have accused the administration of bypassing institutional checks to favour a particular bidder. Former corporator Ashraf Azmi said the move undermines transparency and accountability in public healthcare contracts. “If Navjeevan is already in default, on what basis are they being considered for four blood banks? Why is the proposal not being brought before the Standing Committee? The public deserves answers,” Azmi said. “This raises suspicion that the process is being manipulated to favour selected contractors.”Health activists and former civic officials have also questioned the concentration of multiple blood banks in the hands of a single operator. They argued that blood banks are critical public health institutions dealing with emergency and life-saving services and therefore require the highest level of scrutiny.Never acted on red flags“Blood banks are not ordinary tenders,” said a former health official. “These are sensitive healthcare facilities directly linked to patient safety. Any bidder facing allegations of default should undergo strict scrutiny before being entrusted with additional civic infrastructure.”Sources further claimed that concerns regarding Navjeevan’s compliance status and earlier contractual obligations were internally flagged but allegedly not addressed before the proposal was moved for approval. Experts also questioned the validity of routing such a proposal through the Improvement Committee instead of the Standing Committee, which traditionally examines major contracts involving significant public expenditure and policy implications.“The issue is not just who gets the contract, but how the process is being handled,” a civic governance expert said. “When proposals are shifted away from forums where they are likely to face detailed questioning, it damages institutional credibility and creates the perception that outcomes are predetermined.” Despite repeated calls and messages, Deputy Municipal Commissioner Sharad Ughade and the chairman of the Improvement Committee did not respond to requests for comment till the time of going to press.Opposition leaders are now demanding that the proposal be withdrawn from the Improvement Committee and placed before the Standing Committee for detailed deliberation and public scrutiny.