SC: Omitted Relief Barred Despite Liberty to File Fresh Suit under Order 23  ||  SC: Custodial Confession Alone Cannot Justify Preventive Detention  ||  SC: Failure to Pay Balance Sale Amount Can Lead to EMD Forfeiture under Auction Terms  ||  Gujarat HC: CIC Cannot Order Suo Motu Disclosure of PM Modi’s Degree under RTI Act  ||  MP HC: FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely for Not Specifying Accused’s Role  ||  MP HC: Joint Family Status Alone Does Not Establish Existence of Joint Family Funds  ||  MP High Court Directs State Bar Council to Frame Stipend Guidelines for Junior Advocates  ||  Allahabad High Court: Hookah Bars cannot Operate in UP; Clean Air Prevails over Trade  ||  P&H HC: High Court’s Inherent Powers Cannot Be Used to Entertain a Second Revision  ||  Delhi HC: Magistrate Must Examine Complainant, Hear Accused Before Taking Cognisance    

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