SC: Recoveries U/S 27 of Evidence Act Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction; 1988 Murder Acquittal Restored  ||  SC: Successive Impleadment Applications are Barred by Res Judicata under Different CPC Provisions  ||  Supreme Court Halts Coercive Measures in CJP Protest Cases, Directs Release of Minors  ||  Supreme Court: National Commission for Scheduled Castes Lacks Power to Pass Binding Orders  ||  Bombay HC: Alleged Illegal Arrest Alone Cannot Trigger Contempt Action Against Police  ||  Bombay HC Quashes Order against Taiwan National, Says Online Study Didn't Breach Visa Rules  ||  P&H High Court Issues Directions on LADC Scheme After Reviewing Lawyers' Objections  ||  Allahabad HC: Suspension of Sentence Plea Need Not Take Priority if Appeal is Ready  ||  Allahabad High Court: Surcharge Recovery From Pradhan Must Follow Panchayat Raj Act Procedure  ||  Allahabad HC Directs IB Probe into 4 Lucknow Lawyers, Raises Concern over Lawyer-Police Nexus    

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