In re Vivek Sharma (Competition Commission of India)
The matter originated from an information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 by Vivek Sharma against Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd. and Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, alleging anti-competitive conduct relating to the pricing of disposable syringes. It was alleged that higher Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) were printed on syringes sold through the hospital’s in-house pharmacy compared to identical products sold in the open market.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) initially formed a prima facie view that there may have been contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act and directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the matter. During investigation, the DG found no evidence of collusion or exclusive arrangements between Becton Dickinson and Max Patparganj regarding syringe supply. Consequently, the Commission later confirmed that no contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act was made out against them.
However, the DG found that Max Patparganj allegedly abused its dominant position by compelling admitted patients to purchase products from its in-house pharmacy and by earning significant margins on syringes and other products. The DG considered the relevant market to be “provision of healthcare services/facilities by private super-specialty hospitals” within a specified area and concluded that the hospital’s conduct amounted to contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
