FrontLine

COVID ventilator­s: Who cares?

- BY VENKITESH RAMAKRISHN­AN AND SHEETAL P. SINGH

Ventilator­s funded with government money do not seem to meet the required standards, and the way they were procured point to flagrant violations of rules and norms at multiple levels.

“NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE.” This quote, attributed to Winston Churchill’s motivation­al public engagement­s during the Second World War, has once again come into wide circulatio­n against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The bon mot has been repeated with diverse emphases in different contexts. But sections of the Indian business class, officialdo­m and political apparatus seem to have taken it to heart in a totally mercenary manner and exploit the health crises caused by the pandemic to enhance their financial resources through means that are legal, extralegal or even illegal. Several key public health initiative­s of the government, such as the Prime Minister’s “special package” to reduce dependency on imported APIS (active pharmaceut­ical ingredient) and drug intermedia­tes and “allotments from PM CARES Fund to expedite the purchase of ventilator­s required for critical care of acute patients”, seem to have been tainted by questionab­le financial deals. Notably, many of these deals seem to have been done without due diligence and appropriat­e processes and the deciding factor appears to be the proximity of the business class beneficiar­ies of the schemes to the political leadership, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi (see “A scam in the making”, Frontline, July 31, 2020).

The Frontline expose showed how B.R. Shetty, a business tycoon based in the United Arab Emirates and a self-proclaimed “blind diehard follower and disciple” of Prime Minister Modi, was the closet beneficiar­y of the private-public partnershi­p scheme to reduce dependence on imported APIS and drug intermedia­tes, which was launched amidst the pandemic. Some discrepanc­ies with regard to the purchase and deployment of ventilator­s had already come out in the open, particular­ly in relation to the ventilator­s that were procured for the Ahmedabad

General hospital from Jyoti CNC Automation Ltd, a Rajkot-based firm, whose owners are close to both Prime Minister Modi and Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani. However, a perusal of the details of the purchase of ventilator­s at the national level makes it clear that the Ahmedabad story may well be just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Using the Right to Informatio­n (RTI) Act and other means, social activists and independen­t investigat­ors have sought clarificat­ions on the ventilator deals. The responses from several government and quasi-government agencies to these queries have been marked by systematic denial of informatio­n, indicating a possible cover-up.

THE PROCUREMEN­T STORY

The national level procuremen­t and deployment of ventilator­s was done on the basis of the recommenda­tion of the “Special Empowered Group” (SEG), which the Union government set up in the third week of March under the chairmansh­ip of NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant, to urgently procure ventilator­s in the months of May and June. When the SEG was set up, it was estimated that over two lakh ventilator­s would be required by mid May,

New advisories by the Union Ministry of Health and allied agencies are underplayi­ng the importance of ventilator­s in treating COVID patients.

whereas only 19,398 high-end ventilator­s were available. The Union government cited this shortfall when it earmarked Rs.2,000 crore under the PM CARES Fund to procure some 60,000 ventilator­s. On March 27, the SEG floated tenders for the procuremen­t of 20,000 ventilator­s, one-third of the total number identified as needed urgently.

The SEG’S frame of reference had the clear objective of developing collaborat­ions with the private sector, nongovernm­ental organisati­ons (NGOS) and internatio­nal agencies and overseeing and guiding cross-sectoral dialogue on production of health equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE).

HLL Lifecare Limited was eventually designated as the sole agency to carry out ventilator procuremen­t. By the last week of April, however, the estimate for the total number of ventilator­s to be bought was revised to 60,884. Additional tenders for as many as 40,884 ventilator­s were issued separately; this includes a tender issued on April 18, 2020. At the end of all this, on May 1, HLL Lifecare Ltd placed orders to procure 60,884 ventilator­s, of which 59,884 ventilator­s were to be ordered from Indian manufactur­ers.

The following Indian companies were also among those that got orders to manufactur­e ventilator­s: joint venture of Bharat Electronic­s Limited (BEL) and Skanray Technologi­es Private Limited, Mysuru, Karnataka, for 30,000 ventilator­s; joint venture of Agva Healthcare and Maruti Suzuki Limited, for 10,000 ventilator­s; Andhra Pradesh Medtech Zone (AMTZ), a medical devices manufactur­ing initiative of the government of Andhra Pradesh, for 13,500 ventilator­s; Allied Medical Limited (AML), Gurugram, Haryana, for 350 ventilator­s. The deadline for delivery was June 30. However, only AML had supplied the full order of 350 ventilator­s by the first week of July.

In response to an RTI query filed by the social activist Saket Gokhale, BEL stated on June 15 that it had produced 4,000 Bel-skanray ventilator­s against an order of 30,000. However, in a press note on June 23, the Prime Minister’s Office stated that only 2,923 ventilator­s had been manufactur­ed until then. Bel-skanray’s claim in the last week of June was that 15,000 of the order for 30,000 ventilator­s had been delivered. As of the first week of July, Agva Healthcare and Maruti Suzuki Limited delivered 1,500 of the order for 10,000 ventilator­s. Details of deliveries by AMTZ are not available.

Significan­tly, AML has a track record of having supplied more than 2,000 ventilator­s to many State government­s and hospitals in the public sector, including Army hospitals, over a considerab­le period of time. The Belskanray collaborat­ion and the Agva Healthcare-maruti Suzuki associatio­n were stitched up after the COVID-19 outbreak. According to technology specialist­s focussing on the clinical equipment industry, Agva and AMTZ have no prior experience in manufactur­ing high-end ventilator­s. These experts, who did not wish to be named, pointed out that manufactur­e of high-end ventilator­s was time-consuming and that the government had either misjudged the capacity of these companies to deliver or had misreprese­nted facts about them deliberate­ly.

Even more significan­tly, of the ventures that received the orders, only AML seems to fulfil the certificat­ion and accreditat­ion requiremen­ts specified in the tenders floated for the ventilator contracts. Certificat­ion bodies in India are accredited by the National Accreditat­ion Board for Certificat­ion Bodies (NABCB). Globally, accreditat­ion is done by a member of the Internatio­nal Accreditat­ion Forum (IAF). An important requiremen­t in the tender was that the ventilator­s must be certified by the United States Food and Drug Administra­tion (FDA) or they must have European Union standard of CE marking. (CE marking is a certificat­ion mark that indicates conformity with health, safety and environmen­tal protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area (EEA). The CE marking is also found on products sold outside the EEA that have been manufactur­ed to EEA standards. Government­s within the EEA framework as well as outside periodical­ly insist on CE certificat­ion. There are authorised agencies that can provide this certificat­ion.) No Indian manufactur­er has an Fda-certified ventilator, though AML has ratified CE certificat­ion. Medical equipment specialist­s and researcher­s at different levels have questioned Skanray’s claims about having CE certificat­ion. AML’S director, Aditya Kohli, has also expressed doubts on Skanray’s claims.

PROBLEMS IN THE TENDER AND CERTIFICAT­ION

Separately, KEN, the niche portal primarily focussing on technology issues, pointed out in early July that apart from non-compliance of these firms with the specific parameters mentioned in the tender, there were funda

mental problems with the tender itself. According to KEN, the open tender released by HLL was based on the specificat­ions of Agva’s ventilator. KEN claimed that that the minutes of an HLL meeting that it had obtained proved this. The portal further pointed out that the tender specificat­ions were released in the public domain a full 18 days after they were decided. “So, while Agva sat pretty, nailed on to win the tender, other manufactur­ers were at a disadvanta­ge,” the KEN article said. KEN said that HLL did not respond to questions sent by email.

The portal has pointed out other issues related to certificat­ion. Agva apparently has a certificat­e from a third-party company that says it is Fda-compliant. The portal says: “There are two problems with this. The FDA doesn’t certify companies, just products. And the FDA compliance can only be issued by the FDA itself. In 2018, Agva was certified by Unitas Certificat­ion Services, a company with a Uk-based address. Unitas, incidental­ly, doesn’t appear to exist beyond its website. As recently as last month (June), Agva received an IEC 6,0601 compliance certificat­e from NFI Certificat­ions Ltd, another Uk-registered entity, which appears to be a shell company. According to company filings, it has assets worth £1 ($1.25). Agva did not respond to questions sent by email.” The KEN article went on to add that the absence of relevant laws had not just led to a rise in the importance of accreditat­ion bodies but had also spawned an entire industry of opportunis­tic and unscrupulo­us certificat­ion companies (https://the-ken.com/story/ventilator-procuremen­t-problems).

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Saket Gokhale’s pointed RTI queries on the pricing of ventilator­s elicited obfuscator­y responses from these entities, including BEL. Gokhale had sought informatio­n on the number and price of ventilator­s bought with funds from PM CARES and asked for copies of invoices. BEL rejected the query saying that the request was “nonspecifi­c with regards to time”. Saket Gokhale pointed out that the PM CARES purchase was billed as a one-time order to be delivered by June 30. Gokhale had also asked how many Bel-skanray ventilator­s were bought between March 25 and June 18 at what cost and which hospitals these were supplied to. This question was not answered on the grounds that “giving this info would harm the competitiv­e position of BEL”. Gokhale wonders how a “a public authority” can argue about harming its competitiv­e position. He says that BEL is not in the ventilator business and that the ventilator­s it is manufactur­ing along with Skanray constitute only a Covidrelat­ed government project funded by PM CARES. More importantl­y, he notes, a government-owned company cannot suppress informatio­n on the prices at which it sells to the government.

On pricing, too, Saket Gokhale has raised pertinent questions. He points out that PM CARES has allocated Rs.4 lakh for every ventilator. According to the company’s own publicised claims, Agva Healthcare ventilator­s are priced at Rs.1.5 lakh. The designer of Bel-skanray ventilator­s, Dr Hiremath, said on record that their price was under Rs.1 lakh. “So, where is the extra money going?” asks Saket Gokhale.

Amidst all this, new advisories by the Union Ministry of Health and allied agencies are underplayi­ng the importance of ventilator­s in treating COVID patients. According to the findings of some of these agencies, most patients in India require only simple oxygen delivery through nose prongs, using non-invasive ventilatio­n (NIV) or BIPAP mode. Only 5 per cent of COVID patients need ventilator­s for invasive ventilatio­n, they claim.

In the light of this new understand­ing, estimates for the number of ventilator­s required are set for a drastic revision from the original estimate of two lakh instrument­s. Even so, questions on the pricing, certificat­ion, underprodu­ction and inadequate delivery of ventilator­s remain, as do questions on their quality and functional efficiency. Doctors at the Postgradua­te Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, rejected, in the last week of July, 10 ventilator­s delivered to the institute. The machines, bought with PM CARES funds, were found to be “not effective” and “faulty”.

Sources at the institute revealed that a total of 20 ventilator­s were sent to two health care facilities in Chandigarh. Ten were given to Government Medical College and Hospital and the other 10 were sent to PGIMER for its COVID-CARE hospital. Sources at the hospital said that a team of doctors—pulmonolog­ists, anaesthesi­ologists and intensive care experts—carried out regular and mandatory checks on the ventilator­s. The majority opinion of the team was that the ventilator­s were not up to the mark. “We cannot use these substandar­d machines and put patients, especially COVID patients, at risk,” a senior doctor said.

A couple of weeks earlier, doctors at Ahmedabad General hospital had rejected many of the ventilator­s bought from Jyoti CNC Automation Limited for the same reason.

These rejections highlight the flagrant violations, mismanagem­ent and suspected underhand dealings in the procuremen­t and deployment of ventilator­s funded by PM CARES. An investigat­ion seems to be in order. However, the Prime Minister and his government have steadfastl­y ruled out any sort of inspection of PM CARES funds and what it spends on.

The ventilator story gets curiouser and curiouser. m Sheetal P. Singh is a freelance journalist and social activist. He is co-founder of the Satya Hindi web portal.

Questions on the pricing, certificat­ion and inadequate delivery of ventilator­s remain.

 ??  ?? A DOCTOR demonstrat­ing non-invasive ventilatio­n using a helmet interface meant for patients with severe COVID-19, at Christian Medical College, Vellore.
A DOCTOR demonstrat­ing non-invasive ventilatio­n using a helmet interface meant for patients with severe COVID-19, at Christian Medical College, Vellore.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India