Case Law Details
V. Radhakrishnan Vs Medcina Community Pharmacy (Competition Commission of India)
The Commission notes that the Informant is primarily aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the OPs, wherein the OPs are selling certain medicines/drugs at a very high discount which, at times, is lower than their wholesale price, which is in contravention of Section 4 of the Act. In order to substantiate the allegation that the OPs are selling their pharmaceutical products at a very high discounted price, the Informant has submitted copies of invoices issued by the OPs and wholesalers with respect to some medicines/drugs.
The Commission is of the view that, for the applicability of Section 4 of the Act and for the examination of contravention thereof, it may be axiomatic to define a relevant market and assess the dominance of the entity alleged to be abusing its dominant position in such market. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the abuses as alleged, the Commission does not find it imperative to define a precise relevant market in the instant matter.
The Commission notes that, as per the averment contained in the Information, there are numerous pharmaceutical retailers in the State of Kerala and in and around Kollam In this regard, the Informant has itself stated that around fifty thousand pharmacists are registered with the Kerala State Pharmacy Council. The medicines/drugs on which the OPs are allegedly providing deep discounts are used for curing different diseases and are produced by different pharmaceutical companies, and thus, they seem to be generic medicines/drugs. The Commission also notes that the allegations of the Informant pertain to collective dominance by the OPs, which is not recognised under the scheme of Act. Thus, the facts of the case do not, prima facie, disclose any contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act by any of the OPs, as has been alleged. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that discounts are being given by the OPs through any concerted action on their part.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case of contravention of any of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act against the OPs and, therefore, the matter be closed forthwith under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises, and the same is also rejected.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
