NEW DELHI: The
Competition Commission of India (CCI), the country's fair play watchdog, has decided to widen the scope of its investigation into unfair prices being imposed by hospitals on in-patients to cover all super-speciality hospitals in and around the national capital.
"After perusing the material on record, the commission noted that huge profit margins are being earned by sale of products to locked-in in-patients to the detriment of such patients," the panel said in its order as it widened the scope of the probe.
DG told to fast-track hospital probe
The CCI is inquiring into a matter for alleged violation of provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, relating to imposition of unfair prices by private super-speciality hospitals. The investigation will focus on products sold by the super-speciality hospitals to their in-patients which are not required on an urgent basis for any medical procedure, intervention or which do not involve any high degree of quality issue from the medical procedure point of view and for the purchase of which the patients have the time and scope to exercise their choice to purchase such products from the open market where they may be available at lower rates. The commission has directed the DG to complete investigation expeditiously.
The CCI is investigating the issue in a case filed by Vivek Sharma against Becton Dickinson and Max Super Speciality hospital, Patparganj. With regard to the abusive conduct of Max Super Speciality Hospital, it is noted from the DG’s report that the hospital had earned huge profit margins ranging from 270% to 527% in the 2014-15 and ranging from 278% to 527% in 2015-16 by sale of different syringes.
“Further, it has been found by the DG that OP-2 (Max Super Speciality Hospital) has been compelling its in-patients to purchase products only from its in-house pharmacy once they are admitted to OP-2. As per the DG’s report, such conduct of OP-2 amounts to contravention of the provisions of Section 4 (2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Since the present investigation report of the DG suffers from some inconsistencies, the commission is of the view that further investigation in this matter is required.
It said the relevant market definition as provided in the DG’s investigation report may be revisited. The concept of ‘after market abuse’ referred to in the DG’s report may be used to define the relevant market as the market for healthcare services/ facilities in the aftermarket for in-patients in superspeciality hospitals. “With regard to the relevant geographic market, instead of considering “a distance of about 12 km from Max Super-Speciality Hospital, Patparganj”, the DG may consider Delhi as the relevant geographic market, as considered by the commission in its prima facie order,” the CCI said.
