Supreme Court: Calling Someone ‘Bastard’ In Heated Exchange Isn’t Obscenity under IPC Section 294  ||  Supreme Court: Even a Single Tainted Public Work Award Violates Article 14  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Lease Cancellation, Denies Relief for Failure to Develop Allotted Land  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Medical Negligence Case, Says Surgeon Best Placed To Choose Procedure  ||  Supreme Court: Sajjadanashin of a Dargah and Mutawalli of a Waqf are Distinct Roles  ||  Supreme Court: Criminal Proceedings Can be Quashed if Reliable Evidence Disproves Allegations  ||  Delhi HC: Promises by CM at Press Conferences are Not Legally Enforceable Without Policy Support  ||  Allahabad HC: Challenges to Tribunal Orders Must be Filed in the HC With Territorial Jurisdiction  ||  Allahabad HC: Challenges to Tribunal Orders Must be Filed in the HC With Territorial Jurisdiction  ||  J&K&L HC: Historical Books Cannot Establish Private Property Titles under Section 57 Evidence Act    

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