Uttarakhand HC: Severity of POCSO Charges Alone Cannot Deny Juvenile Bail  ||  Madras HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Watching CM Vijay's Unreleased Film Online  ||  Jharkhand HC: Interest under Employees' Compensation Act Runs From Date of Accident  ||  Bombay HC Quashes Wakf Property Mutation as Enemy Property, Mandates Due Process  ||  J&K&L High Court: Limitation Must be Decided Before Hearing Appeal Against 31-Year-Old Mutation  ||  Allahabad HC Summons UP Home Secretary Over Delay in Custodial Death Compensation Guidelines  ||  Delhi HC Differs with DPIIT Paper, Says ChatGPT Injunction Would Hurt AI Development  ||  Supreme Court: MHADA can Enforce Developer's Rehabilitation Commitments  ||  SC: Transfer of Defrauded Funds To Accused's Account Alone Cannot Warrant Clubbing FIRs  ||  Supreme Court: States with Under 1,000 Consumer Cases Can Abolish Select District Commissions    

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