Many of Mother T's critics are perplexed or angry that she wasn't what they wanted her to be and what she never claimed to be: a medical administrator. When people gave her an (unsolicited) donation, she brushed her hands free of it as rapidly as she could.
Hitch is aghast, not because she "misused" the money, but because she literally did not keep it.
One of Hitchens' principal informants was the head of the Communist Party in Calcutta, who hated Mother T. because the publicity (which she did not seek, but which followed her after the Muggeridge documentary) focused so much on the misery in the streets.
She herself talked little about Calcutta and little about herself or her work. She didn't even recruit an army of volunteers. She told people hundreds of times, "Find your own Calcutta."
According to Hitchens she opened 150 convents in her own name. Perhaps this would have been enough money to open at least one teaching hospital.
You may say that she was never a medical administrator, but certainly it is a valid criticism that Hitchens makes to point out that she allowed people under her care to suffer and die needlessly. IMHO there is nothing wrong with at least one person presenting a countervailing argument to the almost universal assumptions about her saintliness. People can combine that with other information to attempt to form the most realistic view.
It always seems to be true that highly revered people, Gandhi for instance, have at least a few dark sides to their personality and actions.