Skip to main content

Dr LH Hiranandani Hospital slapped with fine of 3.8 crore by CCI

Dr LH Hiranandani Hospital in Mumbai has been slapped with a fine of Rs. 3.8 crore for anti-competitive practices by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the first time the increasingly assertive anti-trust regulator has penalised a hospital .

The CCI said the super-specialty hospital's exclusive agreement with stem cell banking company Cryobanks International India limited consumer choice and had the potential to mould consumer preferences and distort the market mechanism completely in the long run . "Such agreements notonly affect the competition adversely but are also against the spirit of health services and affectfreetradebesidesbeing anti-consumer ," the CCI said in its order .

The action against Hiranandani is basedon a complaintfiledlast year by Ramakant Kini , a lawyer and family friend of Mumbai resident M Anu Jain,who was denied maternity services by the hospital during the 38 th week of her pregnancy becauseshe refused to avail the services of Cryobanks . Jain preferred the stem cell banking services of Cryobanks ' main rival , Lifecell International , as she did during the birth of her first child .

The CCI observed that "there is an onerous responsibility on hospitals to behave ethically towards patients". Thanks to its punitive action , the CCI may have established itself as a quasiwatchdog in the grossly under-regulated Indian healthcare sector. The penalty has set a precedent for patients to complain against abuse of monopoly and exploitation by hospitals and other healthcare service providers , according to experts .

"The order signals the CCI's deep concern against anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices in a vital sector such as health services ," said Vinod Dhall , former CCI chairman . Dhall heads Vinod Dhall-TT &A, a legal firm specialising in competition law that represented Kini . Companies like Lifecell and Cryobanks collect, process and store blood from umbilicalcord— rich in stem cells — in the moments after birth . Stem cells are used in medical treatments .

Article referred: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CCI-fines-Hiranandani-Hospital-Rs-5040907.S.5848028311690694658?view=&gid=5040907&type=member&item=5848028311690694658&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_nd-pst_ttle-cn

Comment:

An amniotic stem cell bank is a facility that stores stem cells derived from amniotic fluid for future use. Stem cell samples in private (or family) banks are stored specifically for use by the individual person from whom such cells have been collected and the banking costs are paid by such person. The sample can later be retrieved only by that individual and for the use by such individual or, in many cases, by her or his first-degree blood relatives. In case of amniotic fluid stem cell banking, the mother providing the donation initially has ownership of the stem cells and financial responsibility for its storage. When the child from that pregnancy reaches legal age, the ownership and responsibility for the sample may be transferred. The first private amniotic stem cell bank in the US was opened by Biocell Center in October 2009 in Medford, Massachusetts.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...