SC: Completed Trial can't be Remanded for Procedural Lapse Unless Prejudice is Proven  ||  SC: Sessions Courts Cannot Bar Statutory Remission and Commutation Through Special Sentences  ||  SC: Article 311 Bar Inapplicable If Removing Officer Equals Appointing Authority in Status  ||  SC: Contractual Bar Prevents Arbitral Tribunal From Awarding Pre-Reference Interest  ||  SC Frames Guidelines to Prevent POCSO Act Misuse by Parents in Custody Disputes  ||  Delhi HC Directs DLSA to Convey Trial Court’s Encouraging Message and Compensation to POCSO Survivor  ||  Delhi HC: Gravity of UAPA Offence Cannot Justify Prolonged PMLA Detention  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Equestrian Federation's Youth Olympics Selection, Calls for Clearer Norms & Timeline  ||  Delhi HC: Ajeet Bharti Used Caste Superiority to Humiliate Chandrashekhar Azad  ||  Supreme Court: Anti-Suit Injunction Cannot Rest on Speculation of Unenforceable Foreign Decree    

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