Supreme Court: Ad Valorem Court Fees Apply to Appeals Seeking Statutory Land Acquisition Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Cruise Voyages Remain Shipping Business under Section 44B Despite Onboard Services  ||  Supreme Court: People Abandon Cattle on Roads But Object to Their Use For Food  ||  Supreme Court Stays CIC Decision Declaring NSE Subject to the RTI Act  ||  SC: Wife May Be Denied Interim Maintenance if Husband Ex Facie Establishes Adultery  ||  SC: Prior Testimony is Inadmissible without Section 299 CrPC Order against Absconder  ||  Supreme Court: Administrative Action Can't Be Invalidated Solely for Lacking Formal Order  ||  Calcutta High Court: Section 141 NI Act Does Not Apply to Sole Proprietorships  ||  Orissa High Court Criticizes Magistrate for Defying Direction in Cheque Bounce Case  ||  Delhi High Court Safeguards Yuvraj Singh's Personality Rights, Orders Deepfake Takedown    

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