CALCUTTA MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS.
35
TABLE VII.
Admissions from Primary Syphilis into the General Hospitals of Calcutta.
Chandney Sukea's Street
Dispensary.
Medical
College.
Park Street
Dispensary.
Gurrunhut t a Di spensary or Mayo.
Chitpore
Dispensary.
Total syphilis
primary.
1857
1,154
213
1,147
378
1,932
1,119
5,943
1868
934
181
1,087
318
1,505
658
4,684
1869
829
159
621
237
1,448
459
3,753
1870
... ...
619
76
468
107
1,157
309
2,736
1871
... ...
445
107
550
83
644
325
2,154
1872
407
73
575
77
546
167
1,845
1873
610
76
581
81
917
194
2,459
1874
...
584
104
528
53
1,124
285
2,675
1875
614
79
376
50
2,069
222
3,410
1876
317
78
282
122
1,800
174
2,773
1877
352
76
297
88
1,935
200
2,948
1878
357
53
108
84
1,566
162
2,324
The only institution which has maintained the quantity of disease which was recorded
in 1877 is the Chandney Dispensary, whither resort the sick of Fenwick and Bow Bazar
sections ; two neighbourhoods—the one largely and the other somewhat—affected by the
influx of seamen, European and Native, in these later years.
The following return shows the cost of examining the women and treating the sick
1878. The average number of sick in hospital was 305.7, against 288.6 in 1877.
TABLE XI.
Return showing the Expenditure in the Lock-hospitals and Examining Depots during the
year
1878.
Establishment—
Rs. A. P.
Total
...
...
...
...
...
... 14,188 0 0
Per patient
...
... ... ...
...
...
...
46 4 6
Diet and Extras—
Total
...
...
...
...
...
... 18,117 10 6
Per patient
...
...
...
...
... ...
59 4 4
Clothing andContingencies
Total
...
...
...
...
..,
... 3,085 3 9
Per patient
...
... ...
...
... ...
10 1 5
Bazaar Medicine
Total
...
... ...
...
... ...
107 1 9
Per patient
... ...
...
... ...
...
0 5 7
Total
...
...
...
...
...
... 35,498 0 0
Per patient
...
...
...
...
...
...
116 0 0
The final figure is fallacious as a guide to the cost of the work. The heavy item of
establishment owes its amount to the officers who are en-
gaged in inspection at the depots where no sick are treated ;
and if the cost per head of the women be reckoned at all, it
should be reckoned on the total number of women examined,
and not on the sick ; and we might fairly claim to set off
against our expenses the saving in general hospitals result--
ing from diminution of venereal cases.
We spent less on establishment in 1878 by Rs. 930 than in 1877. The new Medical
Officer at Chitpore receives only Rs. 100 per mensem ; his predecessor drew Rs. 200.
Our diet cost in total Rs. 333 more than in 1878. We had a larger daily number of
patients. The charge per patient was Rs. 2-5-7 loss than in 1877. The daily cost of diet
extras with the feeding of a number of children was 2 annas and 4 pies reckoned on the
women only.
Clothing and contingencies cost Rs. 172 more than in 1877, the rate per patient differ--
ing very slightly.
Bazar medicines cost less than before by Rs. 38.
Concerning the conduct of the subordinate establishment, I have again to report favour-
ably. I should be sorry if the mention which I have felt obliged to make of a passing
want of vigilance in inspection were to diminish the credit due to Assistant Surgeon
Mohendronath Gupta for a long course of useful and successful work. The matter could
not be omitted in justice to the Police, on whom the burthen of shortcomings has hitherto
fallen.
Assistant Surgeon Jadubkisto Sircar was appointed, in April 1878, to the charge of the
Chitpore Examination Depot in the room of Dr. Naylor, retired. He has so far given
evidence of being an useful, efficient officer. Sheik Mongloo has conducted the Alipore Hos-
pital in the manner reported before, in terms which have exhausted the language of eulogy.
His assistants, Rajendro Chunder Banerjee and Obhoy Churn Doss, have given him satis-
faction ; and they must have done well to do that, for Sheik Mongloo measures other men's
work by the same high standard that governs his own.
Rear. No. 437-150-26-4-79.
The house-rent of Assistant Surgeon
M. N. Gupta, viz. Rs. 50 per mensem,
is included in contingencies. The sa-
-lary of Assistant Surgeon Lal Behary
Roy, who officiated during the absence
of M. N. Gupta, is not entered here.