The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.khaitanco.com, you acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Khaitan & Co of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Khaitan & Co or its members. The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Khaitan & Co shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Khaitan & Co.

Please accept the above


See all results for ""

CCI rejects allegations of anti-competitive behaviour against Siemens


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in an order dated 13 August 2021 declined to initiate investigation into allegations of abuse of dominant position and anticompetitive vertical agreements against Siemens Healthcare Private Limited (Siemens).


An information (complaint) was filed by Star Imaging and Path Lab Private Limited and Janta X-Ray Clinic Private Limited (collectively, “Informants”), companies involved in providing diagnostics and pathology lab services in Delhi.

The Informants alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive vertical agreements by Siemens Ltd., Siemens Aktiengesellschaft and Siemens (collectively, “Siemens Group) in contravention of Section 3 (4) and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). Pertinently, allegations were made against Siemens Ltd. and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, despite the fact that they have not been engaged in the healthcare business in India since mid-2015.

The Informants had purchased certain CT Scan machines and MRI machines (Machines) from the Siemens Group and alleged that the Siemens Group had imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions on the use of the Machines. The Informants further claimed abusive conduct with respect to the after sales services and spare parts sold by Siemens for the Machines.

Relevant Market:

The Informants delineated two separate relevant markets, a primary market in connection with the sale of Machines, and a secondary market for spare parts and after-sales services. However, the CCI rejected the Informants’ delineation of the relevant market.

Accepting the submissions of Siemens, the CCI held that the case was fit for defining a unified systems market. The CCI noted that the Informants’ ability to undertake whole life costing of the Machines, and the presence of independent service operators (ISOs) for third party after sales services for the Machines, demonstrated that only a unified systems market was required to be defined. 

Although the CCI left the market definition open, it agreed with the contentions of Siemens and observed that the Machines were substitutable with the offerings of competitors. The CCI, after considering the fact that similar products were being offered by several other manufacturers, decided not to define a narrow relevant market.

Dominance and Abusive Conduct:

The CCI concluded that Siemens was not in a dominant position, in view of the significant presence of other players in the markets for CT Scan machines and MRI machines. The CCI further highlighted the availability of spare parts and after sales services through various ISOs.

Despite not being required to record its findings on abusive conduct, the CCI observed that the conduct of Siemens was not abusive in any manner. It highlighted that the Informants did not provide any evidence to demonstrate unfair or abusive conduct by Siemens. The CCI recognized the opportunity for negotiation and the bilateral nature of the agreements between the Informants and Siemens.

Considering the above, the CCI concluded that there was no prima facie case for the alleged abuse of dominant position and anticompetitive vertical agreements under the Act. The CCI closed the investigation under Section 26(2) of the Act.

The CCI’s order can be accessed here.

-         Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner), Aman Singh Baroka (Senior Associate), Ebaad Nawaz Khan (Senior Associate), Armaan Gupta (Associate)

For any queries please contact: editors@khaitanco.com ​​​​​​​

Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (partners)

We have updated our Privacy Policy, which provides details of how we process your personal data and apply security measures. We will continue to communicate with you based on the information available with us. You may choose to unsubscribe from our communications at any time by clicking here.

For private circulation only

The contents of this email are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the professional views of Khaitan & Co and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. Khaitan & Co disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2021 Khaitan & Co. All rights reserved.


One Indiabulls Centre
13th Floor, Tower 1
841 Senapati Bapat Marg
Mumbai 400 013 India

T: +91 22 6636 5000

E: mumbai@khaitanco.com

New Delhi

Ashoka Estate, 12th Floor
24 Barakhamba Road
New Delhi 110 001 India

T: +91 11 4151 5454

E: delhi@khaitanco.com


Simal, 2nd Floor
7/1 Ulsoor Road
Bengaluru 560 042 India

T: +91 80 4339 7000

E: bengaluru@khaitanco.com


Emerald House
1B Old Post Office Street
Kolkata 700 001 India

T: +91 22 6636 5000

E: kolkata@khaitanco.com