Supreme Court: General Fraud Allegations Cannot Extend Limitation under Section 74 CGST Act  ||  SC: ‘No Coercive Steps’ Order Cannot Restrain Filing of Charge Sheet  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Maintenance for Autistic Child May Continue Beyond 18 Until Self-Sufficient  ||  P&H HC: 45-Day Delay in Informing Detenue of Representation Right Violates Article 22(5)  ||  Rajasthan HC Bars Courts from Protecting those Responsible for Building Defects at their Own Peril  ||  Allahabad HC: Clarification Issued Before Decision Applies to Pending Tender Complaints  ||  Allahabad HC: Father’s Custody Cannot be Denied without Proof of Guardianship Unfitness  ||  Bombay High Court: Each Petitioner Must Pay Court Fee Where Causes of Action are Separate  ||  P&H High Court: Counsel’s Ignorance of Readily Available Prior Litigation Amounts to Dereliction  ||  SC: Amendments to Government Orders Must Be Construed Fairly to Prevent Hardship    

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