Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Abolish Hanging, Says Centre Can Explore Alternative Methods  ||  Supreme Court: Sentences With Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively  ||  SC: Insurer Not Liable Beyond Sum Assured Without Advance Premium Payment  ||  Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Regularised Due to Long Service  ||  SC: Courts Should Not Interfere Late in Tender Processes; Challenges Must Be Prompt  ||  Delhi HC: UAPA Default Bail Triggered after 180 Days, Not 90 under BNSS  ||  Madras HC: No Place for Caste Discrimination in Temples, God Treats All Equally  ||  Bombay HC: Public Authorities Need Not Obtain Third-Party Information for RTI Applicants  ||  Delhi HC Levies Rs.5 Lakh Costs on Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited over Sham Plea  ||  Delhi HC: False Marriage Promise Invalidates Consent Only if it Taints Consent    

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