SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

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