CCI competition order Case No. 77(10) of 2015 · 21 May 2026
Official title
Vivek Sharma vs. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (Indraprastha Apollo Hospital), New Delhi
Summary
Check the official recordThe Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed the investigation into allegations that Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (Apollo Hospital) abused its dominant position by charging excessive prices for room rents, medical tests, devices, consumables, and medicines. The CCI determined that the hospital's services constitute a unified market for healthcare services rather than separate primary and secondary markets. The Commission found that the Director General's methodology for assessing excessive pricing—comparing hospital charges against standalone diagnostic labs, hotels, or procurement costs—was inadequate and failed to account for the distinct operational costs and clinical requirements of a super-specialty hospital. Consequently, the CCI concluded that the evidence did not establish a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Case No. 77(10) of 2015 Page 1 of 36
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 77(10) of 2015 In re:
Vivek Sharma Informant And
Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (Indraprastha Apollo Hospital), New Delhi Opposite Party CORAM Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson Mr. Anil Agrawal Member Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member Mr. Deepak Anurag Member PRESENT For Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (Indraprastha Apollo Hospital), New Delhi (Opposite Party) : Shri Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate along with Shri Harman Singh Sandhu, Ms. Manika Brar, Ms. Supritha Prodaturi, Shri Rahul Shukla, Shri Shivek Sahai Endlaw, Ms. Varalika Mendiratta and Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Advocates, and Mr. C P Tyagi, CFO, IAH and Shri Ankit Gupta, GM, IAH
ORDER
Case No. 77(10) of 2015 Page 2 of 36
Case No. 77(10) of 2015 Page 3 of 36
syringes to be sold in the in-house pharmacy of Max Patparganj in order to cheat the patients, has not been substantiated in the investigation report. It was reported by the DG that Max Patparganj and Becton Dickinson have not entered into any exclusive agreement with respect to supply of disposable syringes as Becton Dickinson supplies its blister pack disposable syringes to Max Patparganj through M/s Shobham Surgical Works and its flow wrap syringes through M/s Hindustan Surgicals. Thus, according to DG, Max Patparganj and Becton Dickinson have not contravened any of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. The Commission confirmed the finding of the DG that these 02 (two) entities have not contravened any of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. 6. However, the Commission also noted that the DG has considered the market for ‘provision of healthcare services/ facilities by private super-specialty hospitals within a distance of about 12 kms from Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj’ as the relevant market and found Max Patparganj to be abusing its dominant position in the same. The Commission noted that the DG has observed that Max Patparganj is earning huge profit margins by sale of different syringes and also shifted its procurement/ purchase from flow wrap syringes to blister pack syringes. Further, Max Patparganj was found by the DG to be compelling its in-patients to purchase products only from its in-house pharmacy once they are admitted to the hospital. As such, the DG had concluded that such conduct of Max Patparganj amounts to contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. 7. In light of the above, the Commission observed from the investigation report that while there is a reference to the conduct of Max Patparganj being akin to ‘aftermarket abuse’; however, the DG has not investigated/ analysed the same in greater detail. Accordingly, the Commission, vide order dated 31.08.2018, in terms of Regulation 20(6) of the erstwhile Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (‘General Regulations, 2009’), directed the DG to cause a supplementary investigation to be made into the matter. 8. Accordingly, the DG submitted the supplementary investigation report – confidential version on 24.12.2021, identifying 12 (twelve) super-specialty hospitals of Delhi including Max Patparganj for the purposes of its investigation, based on 05 (five)
Case No. 77(10) of 2015 Page 4 of 36
parameters, framing 05 (five) issues in the matter and concluding on each of them, as follows: 8.1 Issue No. 1: Whether the investigated hospitals are ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act? DG’s Finding: Since revenue model of the investigated super-specialty hospitals show that they are involved in carrying out commercial activities i.e., providing medical services to patients in lieu of monetary consideration, they are ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of the Act. 8.2 Issue No. 2: What is the relevant market? DG’s Finding: Barring one hospital i.e., St. Stephen’s Hospital, Delhi, all other 11 (eleven) hospitals do not allow purchase of consumables, medical devices, medicines and medical tests from outside the hospital. Thus, from point of view of providing medical services to their in-patients, these hospitals are self-contained and independent from each other. Therefore, relevant product market was delineated in terms of “market for provision of healthcare services/ facilities for in-patients admitted to the respective private super specialty hospital” and the relevant geographic market was taken as “Delhi”. As such, 12 (twelve) separate relevant markets on these grounds were defined by the DG. 8.3 Issue No. 3: Whether the investigated hospitals are dominant in the delineated relevant market? DG’s Finding: All 12 (twelve) investigated hospitals are independent markets in themselves and no other hospital exercises any influence on control of management or policies of such hospitals; therefore, each investigated hospital is dominant in its respective relevant market. 8.4 Issue No. 4: If the answer to Issue No. 3 is in affirmative, whether the conduct of investigated hospitals is in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act?
