CCI dismisses cartelization allegations against pharmaceutical companies in ESIC procurement due to insufficient evidence under Section 3(3)

CCI dismissed cartelization allegations against pharmaceutical companies in ESIC medicine procurement tenders under Section 3(3) of Competition Act, 2002. The informant failed to provide specific details of tenders, medicines, or parties involved despite being given two opportunities. Commission found no prima facie case established due to lack of cogent material evidence beyond bald allegations. Information was closed under Section 26(2) and relief under Section 33 was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Alleged cartelization in procurement of medicines by ESIC, Contravention of Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, Lack of evidence and details provided by the Informant

Analysis:
The Information filed alleged cartelization in the procurement of medicines by ESIC, involving five individuals, ESIC officials, and pharmaceutical companies. The Informant claimed that this cartel arrangement led to inflated prices of medicines and healthcare products. The Informant also highlighted the lack of transparency in decision-making regarding guidelines and pricing structures, attributing the overpricing to collusion among the parties involved. The estimated overpricing was around 40%, resulting in significant financial losses. Additionally, the Informant pointed out that other government bodies also adopted ESIC prices as benchmarks, further exacerbating the impact of the alleged malpractice on public funds and accessibility to healthcare products.

The Informant requested immediate investigation, cancellation of tenders, appointment of an investigation agency, and the formation of a committee to reevaluate pricing and introduce a new bidding system. Interim relief was sought in the form of initiating an inquiry, canceling tenders, appointing a monitoring committee, investigating alleged cartel masterminds, and establishing new pricing guidelines. The Commission reviewed the Information but found the details and material provided insufficient to substantiate the allegations. Despite multiple opportunities given to the Informant to provide necessary information, no response was received within the specified timelines.

Subsequently, the Commission determined that no prima facie case of contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act was established against any of the Opposite Parties (OPs) based on the available record. As a result, the Information was ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and relief under Section 33 was denied. The Secretary was directed to communicate this decision to the Informant, concluding the matter based on the lack of evidence and failure to provide essential details by the Informant despite repeated opportunities.

---