Supreme Court Allows Cross-Examination on Brand Use Despite Written Statement Not Being on Record  ||  Supreme Court: Enquiry Needed Before Dismissal for Suppressing Criminal Antecedents  ||  Supreme Court: Trading While Holding Confidential Information Indicates Insider Trading  ||  Supreme Court Explains Four-Step Test to Quash Criminal Cases Using Defence Material  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Man in Minor Rape Case, Flags HC's Medical Evidence Lapse  ||  Bombay HC: Minor’s Inability to Describe Sexual Act No Ground to Reject Her Testimony  ||  Delhi HC: Wife’s Interim Maintenance Cannot be Based Solely on Husband’s Income  ||  Calcutta HC: SLSA Cannot Adopt ‘Big Brother’ Approach Over Adult Victims’ Compensation  ||  Allahabad HC: Further Investigation Permissible Even After Final Report is Accepted  ||  Allahabad HC: Court-Directed Award Cannot be Challenged for Not Computing Market Value    

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