Competition Case Dismissed: No Evidence of Anti-Competitive Agreement Found Under Competition Act, 2002.

The Commission concluded that no anti-competitive agreement existed among the Opposite Parties, leading to the closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The evidence provided by the Informant failed to establish contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, as commercial considerations primarily influenced purchase decisions. Consequently, the reliefs sought under Section 33, including compensation and permission for promotional activities, were not granted. The Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the Informant, effectively concluding the case.

---

---

Issues: Alleged contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 by various entities including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, e-pharmacies, and government departments.

The judgment pertains to an Information filed by an Informant, a pharmacist holding a patent for an Oral Rehydration Powder Composition marketed as 'Protestin'. The Informant alleged non-cooperation from private hospitals, medical associations, online pharmacies, and other entities in promoting the product, leading to financial losses. The Informant sought reliefs under Section 33 of the Act, including compensation and permission for digital marketing. The Commission noted the Informant's grievances regarding non-marketing of the product and potential contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act by the Opposite Parties.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by the Informant, including sales data of the product, and assessed the alleged anti-competitive behavior. It was observed that the emails sent by the Informant to various entities did not establish the existence of an anti-competitive agreement as required under Section 3(4) of the Act. The Commission emphasized that commercial considerations drove purchase decisions, and in the absence of anti-competitive conduct, intervention by the Commission may not be warranted. Consequently, the Commission concluded that no anti-competitive agreement was demonstrated among the Opposite Parties, leading to the decision to close the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

In light of the findings, the Commission determined that there was no contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, the requested reliefs under Section 33 of the Act, including compensation and permission for promotional activities, were not granted. The Secretary was directed to communicate the decision to the Informant, bringing the matter to a close.

---