SC: Lessee Cannot Challenge Eviction After Landowner Withdraws Plea  ||  SC: Appointment Contrary to Recruitment Advertisement Constitutes Fraud on Public  ||  SC: Bribe Given to Intermediary Alone Insufficient to Establish Public Servant's Guilt under PC Act  ||  SC: AO Cannot Revive Assessment Concluded by Settlement Commission under Income Tax Act  ||  SC: Insurer's Office Location Alone can't Confer Jurisdiction for Claim under MV Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Mutual Consent Divorce Justifies Quashing S.498A IPC Cruelty Case under HMA  ||  Delhi HC: Mere 2-Year Delay in Arbitral Award does not Warrant Setting Aside  ||  Kerala HC: Courts can't Insist on Identifying Unknown Parties in John Doe Suits  ||  Supreme Court: Army Must Prove Disability Was Unrelated to Service to Deny Pension  ||  SC: Grant of Fishing Rights by Deed is a Transfer of Immovable Property, Qualifies as Lease    

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