SC: Advocate Must Protect Client Confidentiality Even after Client Turns Adversary  ||  SC: Revenue Record Mutation Alone Cannot Defeat a Person’s Property Title  ||  SC: SARFAESI Auction Valid Despite EMD Shortfall Where 25% Price Was Paid on Auction Day  ||  SC: Extended GST Limitation under S.74 Requires Notice to Specify Fraud or Concealment  ||  Allahabad HC Invalidates Key Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Law  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Courts Cannot Prescribe Method for Determining Property Tax  ||  Bombay HC: ICC’s ‘No Sexual Element’ Finding Can Be Challenged under POSH Act  ||  Rajasthan HC: Road Widening Demolition Requires Title Claims and Fair Hearing  ||  Allahabad HC: Mere Presence or FIR Nomination is Insufficient for Conviction under Section 149 IPC  ||  MP HC: Employment Secured Through Forged Records Gives No Right to Hold Public Office    

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