14
REPORT ON THE
by the Calcutta and Suburban municipalities and one-sixth by Government.
The income side of statement No. IX has been adjusted accordingly.
62. There was a slight increase in the expenditure on establishment, the
amount being Rs. 8,812 in 1882 against Rs. 8,763 in the preceding year.
Bazar medicines cost Rs. 46 against Rs. 39. The expenditure on Europe
medicines exceeded that of 1881 by Rs. 72. Owing to the change of dates in
the submission of indents on the medical store department in 1882, the sup-
ply of medical stores received in the hospital was that for a year and a half for
the first time, hence the apparent increase in the expenditure. The cost of
dieting fell from Rs. 5,435 in 1881 to that of Rs. 4,419 in the year under
review. This was due partly to the smaller number of patients treated in 1882
and partly to the cheapness of provisions. The cost, per head per diem, was
2 annas 4 pie against 2 annas 6 pie in 1881. No alteration was made in the
diets. Dr. Nilcholson remarks that “ they are on a liberal scale, and are suit-
able for the class of patients treated in the hospital.” Miscellaneous charges
amounted to Rs. 482 against Rs. 730, the decrease being in the expenditure
on clothing, which cost Rs. 131 only against Rs. 340 in 1881. Building
charges in 1882 exceeded those of the previous year by Rs. 1,077. Excluding
this extraordinary charge, the gross expenditure of the hospital amounted to
Rs. 14,045 in 1882 to compare with Rs. 15,150 in the preceding year.
63. Mayo hospital.—On 1st January 1882 there remained an invested capi--
tal of Rs. 3,37,400, and Rs. 5,000 were invested during the year. In the state--
ment submitted the amounts had been shown to be Rs 3,37,965 and Rs. 5,090
respectively. No mention has been made of the nature of investments.
Apparently the specified sums represent the actual and not the nominal value
of invested securities. In my report for 1881 it was said that “ it would seem
from the sums invested in the hospital from annual income that the payments
of Government may now be reconsidered with advantage.” In the Govern-
ment resolution thereon it was remarked that the proposal would be considered
in the Financial Department of the Bengal Government. No orders have,
however, been received on the subject during the year.
64. The total expenditure of the hospital and its associated dispensaries
was Rs. 58,281 against Rs. 59,413 in 1881, exclusive of the money invested.
Deducting amounts spent on buildings, the expenditure was Rs. 49,928 against
Rs. 58,612. Government contributed Rs 37,366, viz. Rs. 7,000 as the cost of
imported medicines and forms, and Rs. 30,366 as special allowances. There is
no record in this office of particular items on which the last grant is expended.
Of the total expenditure, Government contributed 64 per cent and the private
funds of the institutions 36 per cent. In 1881 the corresponding figures
were 62 and 38. The proportion of this Government contribution is much
larger than in any Calcutta hospital, except the Medical college. The income
from local sources amounted to Rs. 26,224, of which Rs. 16,658 were received
as interest on investments. The subscriptions from Europeans and natives
exhibit an increase of Rs. 3,556 on those of 1881. The total receipts in 1881
from private sources, exclusive of the amount drawn from the Savings Bank,
were Rs. 22,990.
65. The expenditure on establishment was Rs. 31,455, or Rs. 250 in
excess of that of 1881. In the latter year, the cost showed a reduction of
Rs. 2,962 on that of 1880. Bazar medicines cost Rs. 1,751 against Rs. 1,861.
The amount spent on Europe medicines was Rs. 4,495 against Rs. 9,784 in
1881. A large stock of medicines purchased from England remained from the
previous year, and this accounts for the small sum expended in the year under
review. The expenditure on dieting articles was Rs. 5,472 against Rs. 6,582.
A smaller number of in-patients were daily treated in the hospitals during the
year. The average cost of each diet was the same as in 1881, viz. 3 annas
2 pie. This charge largely exceeded those of other institutions as in 1881.
No explanation of this is given in the report. In the resolution on the report
for 1881 the Lieutenant-Governor remarked that “ some explanation should
have been given of this,” and a copy of the report with the resolution was for-
warded to the Superintendent for his information. The charges on miscellane-
ous items exhibit a reduction of Rs. 2,423, which has not been explained.