Supreme Court: Anti-Suit Injunction Cannot Rest on Speculation of Unenforceable Foreign Decree  ||  SC: High Court’s Location doesn't Become Arbitration Seat Merely by Appointing Arbitrator  ||  SC Disapproves PIL Challenging Inter-Se Evaluation of Tender Bids  ||  Delhi HC: Bail Grant or Cancellation Cannot Depend on Monetary Settlement With Complainant  ||  Kerala HC Directs Bar Council to Publish List of Advocates Practising Without AIBE Clearance, CoP  ||  Rajasthan HC: Candidate Cannot Blame E-Mitra for Failing to Correct Caste Category Within Deadline  ||  Patna HC: Mere FIR Registration cannot Justify Cancellation of PDS Licence  ||  Calcutta HC: NEET Medical Board Cannot Reassess Disability Percentage of PwBD Candidates  ||  Madras HC: MLAs Cannot Challenge Assembly Vote Later if They Raised No Objection During Voting  ||  Karnataka HC Upholds DRDO Land Acquisition, Citing Primacy of National Security    

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