Case No. 49 of 2015. Case: Tarun Patel Vs Haria Lakhamshi Govindji Rotary Hospital and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 49 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta, M.S. Sahoo, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 3, 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 4 |
| Judgement Date | November 18, 2015 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the 'Act') by Shri Tarun Patel (hereinafter, the 'Informant') against Haria Lakhamshi Govindji Rotary Hospital (hereinafter, 'OP 1'), Rotary Charitable Trust (hereinafter, 'OP 2'), Rotary Club, Vapi (hereinafter 'OP 3') and Rotary International (hereinafter, 'OP 4') alleging, inter-alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
-
Facts of the case may be briefly noted as under:
"2.1 As per the information, OP 1 is stated to be one of the most well-equipped, professionally managed and well maintained hospitals in Vapi, Gujarat. It is submitted that in the year 1982, Haria Group joined hands with OP 2 and subsequently OP 1 made rapid progress.
2.2 The Informant has stated that the generic drugs are essential for effective competition and for ensuring the supply of medicines to consumers at a lower price. It is alleged that the doctors of OP 1, in collusion with its pharmacy, prescribe branded and expensive drugs to the patients instead of cheaper generic drugs. In this regard, the Informant has highlighted that in terms of Regulation 1.5 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, every physician is required, as far as possible, to prescribe drugs with generic names and ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs.
2.3 The Informant has alleged that the above conduct of OP 1 hurts the Economically Weaker Section/Below Poverty Line (EWS/BPL) patients as they have to purchase medicines at high prices and are not able to afford better treatment from OP 1.
2.4 It is averred that there is an arrangement amongst OP 1, its pharmacy and pharmaceutical companies for promoting drugs of a particular brand or of a pharmaceutical company. It is thus alleged that OPs are engaged in a practice of directly or indirectly determining the sale price of drugs and controlling or limiting the supply of drugs through their concerted and restrictive practice. The conduct of OPs allegedly contravenes the provisions of sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Act.
2.5 The Informant has submitted that OP 1 enjoys a dominant position in Vapi since it is one of the prominent hospitals in the city. It is submitted that because of its dominance, OP 1 is charging rent in the range of Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs for its...
To continue reading
Request your trial