PCoI records statement from witnesses regarding Suraksha

Colombo (News 1st): Presidential Commission of Inquiry probing fraud and corruption over the past 04 years recorded statements from witnesses over the alleged misappropriation using the 'Suraksha' health insurance policy. The commission is headed by retired supreme court justice Upali Abeyaratne. The testimony of the Education Ministry Director Renuka Peiris revealed, that when granting the tender to a private establishment, the ministry did not consider the advisory. The alleged misappropriation had taken place when the tender was being awarded to the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and another private establishment. Although it is the duty of the technical assessment committee to assess the capital capacity of the selected insurance companies, a private insurance company with a total capital of only some Rs. 1000 million was selected for the project over Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation which has a total capital of Rs. 27,000 million. It was revealed that the differences in the capital capacity had not been cited in the technical or financial report of the student insurance policy project. When the head of the technical assessment committee Renuka Peris was questioned as to why these figures were not included in the reports she said that although certain facts were considered, some of them were not included in the reports. The Chairman of the Presidential commission Upali Abeyaratne made a statement advising the witness that the report should be prepared with the relevant citations and not according to one's whims and fancies. It was also revealed that the technical assessment committee had paid little attention to the number of branches of the insurance company, the company's financial potential, and the institution's affiliations to the government. The technical assessment committee had evaluated the affiliation of the insurance company with the government based on primary requirements such as the being registered under the Insurance Board. The witness accepted that if the proper facts were considered adequately the company that was selected for the project could have been different.