CCI rejects complaint against AIIMS,Delhi Metro Corp, 4 others

Fair trade watchdog CCI has dismissed charges that All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and four other government procurement agencies indulged in unfair trade practices with respect to purchase of medical products.
Jammu & Kashmir Projects Constructions Corporation, BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Telecommunications Consultants India are the four other agencies against whom the complaint has been rejected.
The complaint was filed by the owner of Medical Product Services which along with two other firms -- MDD Medical Products and PES Installations.
The three firms were penalised in 2012 by the CCI for violating competition norms.

As per the complaint, the six government agencies had abused their dominant position by restricting entry of firms penalised by the CCI from participation in tenders for the supply of Medical Operation Theatre and Medical Gas Pipeline System.
In an order dated January 2, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said the allegations "do not fall within the mischief" of provisions of the Competition Act" and that the information filed by the complainant "do not provide basis for forming a, prima facie, opinion for referring the matter to the Director General (DG) to conduct the investigation".

According to the fair trade regulator, the six agencies have "the right to prescribe such terms and conditions for purchase of commodities in the market which it considers apt".

"A restraint prescribed in the tender document which is applicable uniformly can never be construed as discriminatory or unfair," CCI stated.
Citing that its penalty order against the complainant was known to the public at large, the CCI said: "An action on the part of the opposite parties (6 agencies) to insert the impugned clause in the tender document based on the order of the CCI cannot be deemed as concerted action".
As per the complaint, an understanding had been reached among various tendering authorities to limit and control the supply of services by introducing unfair terms in the tenders.

It was alleged that the six entities held a dominant status "for the reason of their being government procurement agencies" and influenced the decision of other tendering agencies and also served "as an instrument in the hands of business rivals to limit competition".