Vivek Sharma Vs Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj (Competition Commission of India)
The matter before the Competition Commission of India arose from information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. and Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj. The Informant alleged that disposable syringes sold at the hospital’s in-house pharmacy carried higher MRPs than identical syringes sold in the open market, allegedly due to collusion between the manufacturer and the hospital.
After a prima facie order under Section 26(1), the Director General (DG) investigated the allegations. The DG found that Becton Dickinson supplied syringes through different distributors and had no exclusive agreement with the hospital. Consequently, the allegation of collusion and contravention under Section 3(3) of the Act was not substantiated, and the Commission confirmed that finding.
However, the DG examined whether the hospital abused its dominant position under Section 4 by compelling admitted patients to buy medicines, consumables, medical devices, and tests only through the hospital’s in-house facilities. A supplementary investigation was ordered, covering 12 super-specialty hospitals in Delhi. The DG concluded that these hospitals operated as independent markets for their admitted in-patients and were dominant in their respective aftermarkets.
The DG identified alleged abusive conduct across five areas: room rents, medical tests, medical devices, consumables, and medicines. According to the DG, the hospitals charged higher room rents than nearby hospitals and hotels, charged more for medical tests and imaging services compared to diagnostic laboratories, and earned significant profit margins on medicines and consumables between 2015 and 2018.
