Case Law Details
Sabine S. Vs Mitera Hospital (Competition Commission of India)
In a recent ruling, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) addressed the complaint filed by Dr. Sabine S., Managing Director of Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, against Mitera Hospital. The complaint centered on alleged misinformation regarding IVF treatment costs, which Dr. Sabine claimed could impact competition in the infertility treatment market. However, the CCI found no prima facie case to warrant an investigation under the Competition Act, 2002.
Case Background
Dr. Sabine S. filed a complaint alleging that Mitera Hospital, through its YouTube channel, published misleading information about the cost of IVF treatments. In particular, the video titled, “Whether IVF treatment can be done for Rs. 50,000 – The reality about treatment cost,” posted on July 25, 2023, was claimed to discourage affordable IVF services. According to Dr. Sabine, this was detrimental to hospitals offering low-cost fertility care, as the video allegedly suggested that lower-cost treatments involved poor-quality drugs or hidden costs.
Claims of Abuse of Dominance
The primary grievance was that Mitera Hospital, with a strong presence on social media, was allegedly abusing its dominant position. The hospital’s YouTube channel, with over 100 videos on pregnancy and infertility treatments, was cited as a significant platform that influenced public opinion. Dr. Sabine contended that this dominance allowed Mitera to control the narrative around IVF costs, creating an unfair competitive advantage.
Dr. Sabine further argued that this misinformation could deter hospitals from offering affordable treatments, ultimately harming patient rights by restricting access to lower-cost IVF services.
Request for Interim Relief
In her complaint, Dr. Sabine sought interim relief from the CCI, requesting that Mitera Hospital be directed to remove the YouTube video in question. She also sought an order to prevent the hospital from making further misleading claims on social media. Dr. Sabine emphasized that the actions of Mitera Hospital were affecting not only the competitive landscape but also patients’ access to affordable fertility care.
CCI’s Evaluation
Upon reviewing the case, the CCI noted that while the allegations concerned misinformation about treatment costs, they did not fall within the scope of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission observed that the issue of IVF pricing raised by Dr. Sabine did not appear to demonstrate an abuse of dominant market position or anti-competitive behavior as defined by the Act.
The Commission also considered that Mitera Hospital’s social media influence, while significant, did not translate into a violation of Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the abuse of dominant position. The content of the YouTube video, though potentially controversial, was not found to be a clear attempt to restrict competition or prevent other market players from offering affordable IVF services.
CCI’s Conclusion
On August 14, 2024, the CCI concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of contravention under the Competition Act. The Commission directed the case to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of complaints when no case of anti-competitive behavior is found. The Commission also declined to grant the interim relief requested by Dr. Sabine, as no investigation was deemed necessary.
Implications of the Decision
This decision by the CCI underscores the limitations of the Competition Act in addressing issues related to misinformation in healthcare marketing unless it directly impacts the competitive structure of the market. The ruling indicates that complaints related to dominance in online platforms or content must clearly demonstrate an abuse of market position or anti-competitive practices to fall under the Act’s purview.
Key Points from the Order:
- The alleged misinformation about IVF treatment costs was not found to violate the Competition Act.
- Mitera Hospital’s social media presence was not considered an abuse of dominant position.
- The case was dismissed without further investigation under Section 26(2).
The ruling clarifies the CCI’s stance on the scope of misinformation and its relationship to competition law, especially in industries like healthcare, where information can significantly impact consumer decisions.
Conclusion
The CCI’s decision to dismiss the case reaffirms that while misinformation in marketing can raise concerns, it does not necessarily constitute an abuse of dominance unless it demonstrably harms competition. In this case, the Commission found no grounds to suggest that Mitera Hospital’s actions restricted competition or prevented other hospitals from offering affordable IVF treatments.
For the healthcare industry, this ruling highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in advertising, particularly on social media platforms, while also emphasizing that competition law has its limitations when addressing the complexities of healthcare misinformation.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. The present Information has been filed by Dr. Sabine S., Managing Director, Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited (“Informant”) alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) by Mitera Hospital (“Opposite Party”).
2. The Informant is Managing Director of Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited and also a consultant gynaecologist and obstetrician. The Informant is stated to be an active member of the Human Rights Foundation, a Non- Governmental Organisation and has been engaging in various philanthropic activities by offering affordable treatment and protecting patient rights.
3. The Opposite Party is stated to be a hospital specialising in infertility care. The Opposite Party also runs a social media channel on YouTube.
4. It has been stated that the Opposite Party has uploaded over hundred videos regarding various medical conditions related to pregnancy and treatments offered by them.
5. It has been stated that the Opposite Party on 25 .07.2023, published a video on YouTube titled, “Whether IVF treatment can be done for Rs. 50,000, the reality about treatment cost, Cost of IVF”. The said video claims to address various issues in the field of infertility care including unscientific practices, exploitation of patients, unnecessary pre-treatments, unethical price-taglines,
6. The grievance of the Informant is that the presenter of the video has made unfounded, inaccurate and misleading statements against hospitals offering affordable treatment for infertility care that are detrimental to competitive market and would prejudice market players who are willing to offer quality treatment at affordable rate. It has been stated that the Opposite Party holds a unique position of dominance through their social media account, over other hospitals, who do not have such account or necessary resources to produce such videos and allows them to regulate the market in such a way that it discourages hospitals who are willing to reduce the treatment costs and thereby adversely affect patient rights to obtain treatment at affordable rates.
7. The Informant has alleged that the said averments made by the Opposite Party are inaccurate and would spread misinformation. Further, it has been alleged that they are intended to discourage market players from offering treatment at affordable rates by portraying that such cheaper treatments would mean poor quality drugs or some hidden costs. It has been stated that the Informant has no other remedy other than to approach the Commission under the Competition Act, 2002.
8. The Informant has sought interim-relief from the Commission seeking a direction against the Opposite Party to remove or hide from public viewing the video published on YouTube, as mentioned above, at the earliest, pending disposal of this information.
9. The Informant has sought the following relief against the Opposite Party:
a. Conduct necessary investigation and direct the Opposite Party to remove the YouTube video, whose link is furnished, with immediate effect;
b. Direct the Opposite Party to refrain from publishing inaccurate and misleading statements in social media that can either directly or indirectly affect the interest of the patients and the market adversely; and
c. Grant such other reliefs which this Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
10. The Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 14.08.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
11. Upon perusal of the Information, it appears that the primary grievance of the Informant is that the Opposite Party through Dr. Raju Nair, has made certain misleading statements/mis-information about the cost of IVF and fertility treatments on its You Tube channel against hospitals offering affordable treatment for infertility care. These statements are alleged to be detrimental to a competitive market and would prejudice market players who are willing to offer quality treatment at an affordable rate. This conduct has been alleged to be in abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party in contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
12. As per the Information available in public domain, it appears that Informant is running a hospital which offers services including infertility treatments such as IVF; pediatrics, laparoscopy (Endoscopy); obstetrics & gynaecology; orthopaedics treatment etc. However, the allegations that the Opposite Party is allegedly spreading misinformation/mis-statements about the cost of such treatment do not fall within the ambit of the Competition Act, 2002.
13. In view of the foregoing and in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.
14. Accordingly, the Information is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case arises for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act.
15. The Secretary is directed to communicate the order to the Informant, accordingly.
Author Bio
