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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.