Calcutta HC Rejects Reliance on ‘Vedic Mantras’, Commutes Death Sentence in Wife’s Murder Case  ||  Tripura High Court Pulls Up State Over Failure to Implement Supreme Court's Open Prison Directions  ||  Calcutta HC Upholds Life Term for Father who Raped Minor Daughter, Causing Pregnancy  ||  Karnataka HC Directs Trial Courts, Police to Furnish S.164 of CrPC Statement Copies to Accused  ||  P&H HC: Immigration Fraud by Consultancies is a Growing Menace, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail Leniency  ||  CCPA Fines Rs. 1 Lakh Penalty on United Biscuits over Misleading ‘Wholewheat’ Claims  ||  Bombay HC Permits OTT Release of Hindi Film ‘Bandar’ Subject to Appropriate Disclaimers  ||  Gujarat HC Grants Bail to Marriage Bureau Owner, Finds No Link to Alleged ‘Looteri Dulhan’ Gang  ||  Calcutta HC: Minor’s Consent has No Mitigating Effect in POCSO Sexual Assault Cases  ||  Orissa HC Commutes Death Sentence, Says Emotion Cannot Override Established Law    

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