G.P. Mittal ORDER
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The information in the present case has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') by Mr. Vivek Sharma (the 'Informant') against M/s. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd. ('OP 1') and Max Super Speciality Hospital ('OP 2') [collectively, 'OPs'] alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. As per the information, the Informant is a social worker, OP 1 is a multinational company which manufactures disposable syringe in the brand name of 'Emerald' and OP 2 is a multi-specialty hospital.
3. As per the information, the Informant had purchased a 'Disposable syringe, with needle size 10ml of B.D. Emerald Brand' ('DS') from a in house pharmacy of OP 2 hospital network located at Indraprastha Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi. The said syringe is stated to be manufactured by OP 1 and was sold for a price of Rs. 19.50/- per piece as per the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) marked on it. Further, it is stated that when the Informant had again purchased the same product from a medicine store located outside i.e., Arihant Medicos at Ashok Vihar, Delhi he was charged only Rs. 10/- per piece against MRP of Rs. 11.50/-. As per the Informant, both the products were of same name, quality, quantity and standard and also manufactured by OP 1.
4. The Informant has alleged that OP 1 in collusion with OP 2 printed a higher MRP on the product in order to cheat the patients admitted in the hospital of OP 2. The Informant has further alleged that taking advantage of its monopoly position and in collusion with OP 1, OP 2 is compelling its patients to pay higher price as printed on the products in the pretext of MRP. The Informant has submitted that OP 1 supplies DS bearing higher MRP to OP 2 which is in sharp variance with regular MRP for the same product of the same quality, standard and brand manufactured by OP 1 as available in the open market. Furthermore, OP 2 sells only the product of OP 1 in its hospital, leaving no choice for the consumers/patients. Based on the above, the Informant has averred that such collusion/arrangement between OPs is a clear violation of the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act.
5. The Informant has also submitted that OP 1, in collusion with OP 2, has been printing higher MRP on its product to be sold in the hospitals of OP 2 in order to increase the margins of both the OPs and to cheat the patients/consumer. It is further submitted that OP 2 has given exclusive right to OP 1 to sell its product in its hospital. As per the Informant, OP 1 is in a dominant position for sale of DS in the hospital run by OP 2 and the above said conduct of OPs amounts to abuse of dominant position in terms of section 4 of the Act.
6. The Commission has perused the information, additional submissions and other materials available on record, also heard the counsels of the Informant and the Opposite Parties at length.
7. The Commission observes that the Informant is primarily aggrieved by the conduct of OPs in charging a higher MRP for a DS manufactured by OP 1, brought from a in house pharmacy located within the hospital network of OP 2, compared to the MRP of the same product in the open market. Since the allegations of the Informant in the instant matter essentially relates to the abusive conduct of OP 2 in charging a hig........