Madras High Court: No Appeal Lies Against E-Court Status or Adjournment Orders  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Judicial Officer Promotion Cannot be Denied on Complaint Without Disciplinary Action  ||  Delhi High Court: January 1 as Deemed Service Date For Delhi and Andaman Civil and Police Officers  ||  Delhi High Court: Private Media Houses Performing Public Functions are Subject to Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Rajasthan High Court Orders Registration of Pets That May Pose a Threat to Human Life  ||  Delhi High Court: NSE Qualifies as a Public Authority under the RTI Act  ||  Bombay High Court: Sikh Exemption From Helmet Rule is a Reasonable Classification under Article 14  ||  Supreme Court: Advocate Cannot Enter a Compromise Without the Client’s Authorisation  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Must Protect Every Accused From Mob Violence  ||  Supreme Court: Gujarat Municipal Election Candidates Must Disclose Their Spouses’ Assets    

Vivek Sharma v. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd. and Ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (17 Nov 2015)

Max Hospital and Beckton Dickinson to be investigated for overcharging patients

MANU/CO/0103/2015

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India held Beckton Dickinson India and Max Super Specialty Hospital guilty of colluding to overcharge patients admitted in Max Hospital. The informant had alleged that Beckton Dickinson had printed a higher maximum retail price for products sold in Max Hospital pharmacies than those sold in pharmacies outside the hospital, despite there being no difference in quality, quantity and standard. The Commission accepted assertions that the two had exploited the monopolistic position of the hospital and directed the Director General to complete an investigation into the alleged anti-competitive practices within 60 days.

Relevant : Section 26 Competition Act, 2002 Act

Tags : COMPETITION   HOSPITAL   OVERCHARGE   PHARMACY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved