Sabine S. and Mitera Hospital

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present Information has been filed by Dr. Sabine S., Managing Director, Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited (“Informant”) alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) by Mitera Hospital (“Opposite Party”).

2. The Informant is Managing Director of Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited and also a consultant gynaecologist and obstetrician. The Informant is stated to be an active member of the Human Rights Foundation, a Non- Governmental

Case No. 17 of 2024

Organisation and has been engaging in various philanthropic activities by offering affordable treatment and protecting patient rights.

3. The Opposite Party is stated to be a hospital specialising in infertility care. The Opposite Party also runs a social media channel on YouTube.

4. It has been stated that the Opposite Party has uploaded over hundred videos regarding various medical conditions related to pregnancy and treatments offered by them.

5. It has been stated that the Opposite Party on 25.07.2023, published a video on YouTube titled, “Whether IVF treatment can be done for Rs. 50,000, the reality about treatment cost, Cost of IVF”. The said video claims to address various issues in the field of infertility care including unscientific practices, exploitation of patients, unnecessary pre-treatments, unethical price-taglines, etc.

6. The grievance of the Informant is that the presenter of the video has made unfounded, inaccurate and misleading statements against hospitals offering affordable treatment for infertility care that are detrimental to competitive market and would prejudice market players who are willing to offer quality treatment at affordable rate. It has been stated that the Opposite Party holds a unique position of dominance through their social media account, over other hospitals, who do not have such account or necessary resources to produce such videos and allows them to regulate the market in such a way that it discourages hospitals who are willing to reduce the treatment costs and thereby adversely affect patient rights to obtain treatment at affordable rates.

7. The Informant has alleged that the said averments made by the Opposite Party are inaccurate and would spread misinformation. Further, it has been alleged that they are intended to discourage market players from offering treatment at affordable rates by portraying that such cheaper treatments would mean poor quality drugs or some hidden costs. It has been stated that the Informant has no other remedy other than to approach the Commission under the Competition Act, 2002.

Case No. 17 of 2024

8. The Informant has sought interim-relief from the Commission seeking a direction against the Opposite Party to remove or hide from public viewing the video published on YouTube, as mentioned above, at the earliest, pending disposal of this information.

9. The Informant has sought the following relief against the Opposite Party: a. Conduct necessary investigation and direct the Opposite Party to remove the YouTube video, whose link is furnished, with immediate effect; b. Direct the Opposite Party to refrain from publishing inaccurate and misleading statements in social media that can either directly or indirectly affect the interest of the patients and the market adversely; and c. Grant such other reliefs which this Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

10. The Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 14.08.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.

11. 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.

12. 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.

Case No. 17 of 2024

13. In view of the foregoing and in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, 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.

14. Accordingly, 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.

15. The Secretary is directed to communicate the order to the Informant, accordingly.

Sd/- (Ravneet Kaur) Chairperson

Sd/- (Anil Agrawal) Member

Sd/- (Sweta Kakkad) Member

Sd/- (Deepak Anurag) Member

New Delhi Date: 10.09.2024

Case No. 17 of 2024