Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders  ||  Bom HC Directs No Coercive Action Against Anil Ambani under Black Money Act in Rs 420 Crore Tax Case  ||  Allahabad HC Flags Misuse of BNSS Preventive Detention Powers in Prayagraj Police Commissionerate  ||  Bombay HC: Court-Directed Disclosure Prevails over Confidentiality Clause in Agreement  ||  SC : Del HC can be Approached by CAPF Personnel for Service Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: Khurram Parvez Granted Bail in UAPA Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Magistrates, Police Personally Liable for Illegal Detention  ||  Bombay HC: No Case for Prior Restraint Against HDFC    

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