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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...