CCI Rules on Abuse of Dominant Position in Healthcare Services
- Blog|News|Competition Law|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 25 May, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Vivek Sharma, In re - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 896 (CCI)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ms Ravneet Kaur | Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member
-
Ms Shruti Sharma, Ms Shreya Sharma & Nishant Kandpal, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Information was filed alleging contravention of provisions of section 4 by St. Stephen’s Hospital (OP). DG, in its supplementary investigation report, found that OP was dominant in the relevant market for the provision of healthcare services by super speciality hospitals in Delhi and had contravened the provisions of section 4 by abusing its dominant position.
It was noted that OP was engaged in the economic activity of providing healthcare services to patients (in-patients as well as out-patients) instead of monetary consideration; it was an ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Competition Act, 2002.
It was noted that patients seeking elective treatment were able to take into account the approximate overall cost of treatment, reasonably assess and compare the total cost they were likely to incur during treatment, including the cost of products and services, before seeking admission.
CCI Held
The CCI held that it would not be appropriate to delineate separate primary and secondary (aftermarket) markets for inpatients admitted with OP for elective treatment; accordingly, a unified relevant product market was to be delineated, i.e., the market for the provision of healthcare services by super speciality hospitals.
Further, since OP allowed the purchase of consumables, medical devices, medicines, and medical tests from outside the hospital, no case of abuse of dominant position in contravention of section 4 could be made out against OP.
List of Cases Referred to
- Siddharth Dalmia v. Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No. 337 of 2018, dated 4-3-2025] (para 27)
- United Brands v. Commission of the European Communities [Case 27/76] (para 57).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
