Supreme Court: Section 17A PC Act Does Not Cover Bribe Demands Unrelated to Official Duty  ||  Supreme Court Directs Centre to Promote Interim Compensation Scheme for Road Accident Victims  ||  Karnataka High Court Upholds Homicide Charge Against Father for Letting Minor Son Drive  ||  Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Pan Masala Maker in Rs. 42 Crore Cess Evasion Case  ||  Karnataka High Court: Advocates Practising Without Clearing AIBE May Face Criminal Action  ||  Allahabad HC Orders Scrutiny of UP Basic School Teachers’ Educational and Appointment Records  ||  AP HC: Fabricated Sale Agreements and Breach of Property Undertaking Constitute Perjury  ||  Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review    

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