False Advertising, misrepresentation: CCI Clears Hospital In Unregistered Surgeon Row

Presiding over the case, Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson; Sweta Kakkad, Member; Deepak Anurag, Member clarified that the allegations against Victor Hospital did not raise concerns under competition law. The commission stated that misleading consumers by misrepresenting a surgeon’s qualifications and engaging in false advertising, while serious, do not amount to anti-competitive behaviour under the Competition Act, 2002. It was noted that such issues should be dealt with by medical regulatory bodies rather than the CCI.

The case, filed by Moses Pinto, claimed that the hospital's actions distorted market competition and violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. However, the CCI, in its order dated March 3, 2025, found that the claims did not warrant an investigation.

The complaint stemmed from an incident on August 1, 2023, when Pinto was admitted to Victor Hospital for suspected acute appendicitis. The hospital, under the care of Dr Rajesh S Javherani, recommended a Laparoscopic Appendectomy, which was performed by Dr P Ravi Teja. Post-surgery, the patient allegedly suffered severe complications, including an enterocutaneous fistula, which later required corrective surgery at BLK-MAX Hospital, New Delhi.

During the second surgery, doctors reportedly discovered that a portion of the appendix and a fecalith had been left behind during the first operation. As a result, 10 cm of the patient's small intestine had to be resected to rectify the damage. Pinto claimed that the surgical errors caused him physical suffering and financial hardship.

Furthermore, during a Goa Medical Council disciplinary inquiry, it was revealed that Dr Teja did not possess a valid registration with the council at the time of performing the surgery. The council ruled on July 19, 2024, that Dr Teja had practised without valid registration for over 10 months, violating the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The council imposed a penalty of Rs10,000 on the surgeon but did not take action against the hospital itself.

In his complaint to the CCI, the patient alleged that Victor Hospital's continued employment and promotion of Dr Teja as a "Consultant Surgeon" despite his lack of credentials amounted to unfair market practices. He argued that the hospital gained an unlawful competitive advantage by misrepresenting its staff qualifications, thereby attracting patients under false pretences. Pinto also claimed that compliant healthcare providers incurred higher costs by hiring properly registered professionals, while Victor Hospital circumvented these regulations to cut costs and attract more patients.

Pinto accused Victor Hospital of engaging in misleading advertising by falsely presenting Dr Teja as a registered consultant, thereby attracting patients under false pretences. He further claimed that the hospital gained an unfair competitive advantage over other healthcare providers that followed regulatory standards and employed only registered practitioners. Additionally, the patient argued that the hospital compromised patient safety by allowing an unqualified practitioner to perform surgeries, potentially endangering lives. Lastly, he asserted that such practices undermined consumer trust and distorted market dynamics by creating an uneven playing field for compliant hospitals.

However, after reviewing the complaint, the CCI ruled that these allegations did not raise any competition law concerns. The commission observed;

"The alleged deliberate misleading of consumers through misrepresentation of the qualifications of its surgeon and engagement in false advertising by the Opposite Party (Victor Hospital) do not raise any competition issue under the provisions of the Act."

The CCI further noted that while the claims may be relevant for consumer protection and medical regulatory bodies, they do not fall under the purview of competition law. The commission concluded;

"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."

Based on its findings, the CCI ordered the closure of the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, stating that no case arose for granting relief under Section 33. The commission also directed its secretary to communicate the decision to the complainant.