9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 946 - CCI - Law of CompetitionContravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - hospital specializing in infertility care through misleading statements on social media - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the Information, it appears that the primary grievance of the Informant is that the Opposite Party through Dr. Raju Nair, has made certain misleading statements/mis-information about the cost of IVF and fertility treatments on its You Tube channel against hospitals offering affordable treatment for infertility care. These statements are alleged to be detrimental to a competitive market and would prejudice market players who are willing to offer quality treatment at an affordable rate. This conduct has been alleged to be in abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party in contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act. As per the Information available in public domain, it appears that Informant is running a hospital which offers services including infertility treatments such as IVF; pediatrics, laparoscopy (Endoscopy); obstetrics gynaecology; orthopaedics treatment etc. However, the allegations that the Opposite Party is allegedly spreading mis- information/mis-statements about the cost of such treatment do not fall within the ambit of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter - the Information is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case arises for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act.
Issues: Alleged contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by a hospital specializing in infertility care through misleading statements on social media.
The judgment pertains to an Information filed by the Managing Director of a hospital alleging a violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by a hospital specializing in infertility care. The Informant, a gynaecologist, claimed that the Opposite Party, through its social media channel on YouTube, made misleading statements regarding the cost of IVF treatment, which could harm the competitive market and prejudice other hospitals offering affordable treatment. The Informant sought interim relief to remove the video from public viewing and requested the Commission to investigate and direct the Opposite Party to refrain from publishing inaccurate statements affecting patient interests and the market. The Commission reviewed the matter and found that the allegations did not fall within the ambit of the Competition Act, 2002 as the statements made by the Opposite Party did not warrant an investigation under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the Commission closed the Information under Section 26(2) of the Act, and no relief was granted to the Informant as per Section 33 of the Act. The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant. In the detailed analysis, the Informant alleged that the Opposite Party's video contained unfounded, inaccurate, and misleading statements against hospitals offering affordable infertility care, impacting the competitive market and patient rights. The Informant argued that the Opposite Party's dominant position through social media allowed them to discourage other hospitals from offering affordable treatment, thus affecting patient access to cost-effective care. The Informant sought relief to remove the video and prevent the Opposite Party from making further misleading statements. However, upon review, the Commission found that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of contravention of the Act. The Commission noted that while the Informant's hospital offered infertility treatments, the Opposite Party's alleged misinformation about treatment costs did not fall under the purview of the Competition Act, 2002. Therefore, the Commission decided to close the Information under Section 26(2) of the Act, concluding that no contravention of the Act was evident, and no relief was granted to the Informant as per Section 33 of the Act.
|
