NCLAT: Can Seek Eviction of Tenant from Corporate Debtor's Property under Tenancy Law  ||  NCLAT: For Calculating Limitation Period, Period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded  ||  NCLAT: Adjudicating Authority Can’t Decide Workers' Claims for Layoff Period Dues under ID Act  ||  NCLAT: While Dismissing Appeal for Non-Prosecu., Adj. Authority Can’t Direct Dismissal on Merits Too  ||  NCLAT: Claims Subsequent to Cut-off Date to be Dealt as Per RP by Adjudicating Authority  ||  NCLAT Upholds Canara Bank’s Claims for Loans Advanced to CD on behalf of Homebuyers  ||  Allahabad HC Stays Criminal Proceedings on Ground of Inordinate Delay Caused by State  ||  Ker. HC Declares Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules as Ultra Vires  ||  Del. HC: Support to Terrorist Organisation through Money or Networking is Prohibited under UAPA  ||  HP HC: Mentioning of Wong Provision Not Fatal to Application    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved