Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

CCI Closes Abuse of Dominance Case Against Hospital Due to Lack of Proof of Excessive Pricing

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 5754
Case Name
Vivek Sharma Vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (Competition Commission of India)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Vivek Sharma Vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (Competition Commission of India)

The Competition Commission of India examined allegations relating to pricing practices adopted by private super-specialty hospitals in Delhi in proceedings arising from Case No. 77 of 2015. The original information alleged that disposable syringes sold through the in-house pharmacy of a hospital carried higher Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) than similar products sold in the open market. The Director General (DG) initially investigated alleged contraventions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 and found no evidence of collusion or exclusive agreements between the syringe manufacturer and the hospital. However, the DG concluded that hospitals compelled admitted patients to purchase medicines, consumables, devices, and tests from in-house facilities and earned significant profit margins, amounting to abuse of dominant position.

Following supplementary investigations involving 12 super-specialty hospitals in Delhi, the DG found that hospitals charged higher room rents, medical test charges, medical device prices, and margins on medicines and consumables between 2015 and 2018. The DG treated each hospital as a separate relevant market and held them dominant in their respective markets.

The Commission, however, re-examined the concept of “aftermarket abuse” and considered whether separate primary and secondary markets existed for hospital services and post-admission products and services. It observed that patients generally receive estimated treatment costs before admission and can compare overall treatment expenses across hospitals. The Commission noted that patients are free to choose other hospitals and that switching, though involving procedural and practical difficulties, was not impossible or prohibitively costly in most cases. It therefore concluded that it would not be appropriate to delineate separate primary and aftermarket segments for elective treatment cases and instead defined the relevant market broadly as the “market for provision of healthcare services by super speciality hospitals” in Delhi NCR.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,000

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.