Allahabad High Court: Husband's Liability under the Domestic Violence Act Continues Despite Divorce  ||  Bombay HC: Municipal Council Must Pay for Land Used as DP Road Despite Fund Shortage  ||  Uttarakhand HC: Previous Service Pay Protection Does Not Confer Right to Career Progression Benefits  ||  Supreme Court Revives POCSO Case Against Headmistress, Says Verifying Abuse Claims is No Excuse  ||  SC: Voluminous Documents are No Excuse For Their Delayed Production under Commercial Courts Act  ||  Supreme Court Orders Merged Bank's Eviction For Transferring Tenancy Without Landlord's Consent  ||  SC: Oraon Tribe Custom Doesn't Allow Uncle-In-Law to Adopt Niece's Husband as Ghar Damad  ||  Kerala HC Approves New Public Prosecutor Appointment Guidelines After a Minor Revision  ||  Rajasthan HC Clarifies Criminal Writ Petitions Have No Separate Constitutional Status  ||  Delhi HC Clarifies if Whatsapp Acknowledgment Can Make an Arbitral Award Binding    

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