CCI Finds No Prima Facie Case Of Dominance Abuse Against Vygon India, Closes Information
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 3 September closed a complaint filed against Vygon India Private Limited alleging abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive vertical restraints in its dealership arrangement.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur with Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag held:
“...the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3(4) or 4 of the Act is made out against the OP in the instant matter.”
Vibrant Enterprises, a Gujarat-based partnership firm engaged in distributing medical devices and consumables, had filed information against Vygon alleging contravention of Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Vygon markets and sells single-use medical devices under the brand name 'VYGON'. Vibrant was Vygon's non-exclusive dealer in Gujarat from 2012 until 21 July 2025.
The allegations concerned Vygon's Master Dealership Agreement and related practices. Vibrant alleged that the agreement imposed restrictive conditions, including unilateral termination rights, tender prohibitions, market allocation, non-compete obligations, mandatory 45-day stocking, extensive reporting requirements and audit powers.
It further alleged that Vygon supplied near-expiry or expired products and shifted the related liability onto dealers. According to Vibrant, these practices restricted competition and amounted to abuse of dominant position and vertical restraints under the Competition Act.
Vibrant defined the relevant market as the “market for neonatal and paediatric vascular access devices and specialty critical-care catheters used in tertiary care hospitals in India”. It alleged that Vygon held a dominant position in this market, with its market share ranging between 40% and 70%, depending on the category.
Vygon, on the other hand, relied on an Ernst & Young report to contend that its market share was negligible. It also pointed to the presence of several multinational and domestic competitors in the sector.
The Commission observed that the Master Dealership Agreement covered more than 800 products and that the alleged restrictions applied across a substantially broader range of products. It therefore found merit in Vygon's contention that the entire distribution arrangement could not be assessed solely in the market proposed by Vibrant.
It delineated the relevant market as the “market for supply of medical consumables to the Institutional buyers in India”. It noted that Vibrant had not produced evidence establishing that Vygon held a substantial market share in the relevant market. It also observed that the competitive position of rival suppliers did not indicate that Vygon enjoyed a dominant position.
On the allegations of vertical restraints, the Commission stated:
“The entity concern must enjoy some degree of market power for vertical restraints to materially foreclose the competition. In the instant matter, absence of the market power of the OP, as examined above, makes foreclosure of competing suppliers or dealers unlikely.”
It also noted that Vibrant had obtained a dealership from Polymed after its relationship with Vygon ended, indicating that an alternative source of supply was available and that switching at the dealership level was not prohibitive. The Commission concluded:
“…it can neither be said that the OP enjoys a dominant position for the purposes of Section 4 of the Act nor that the impugned vertical restrictions have caused, or are capable of causing, appreciable adverse effect on competition under Section 3(4) of the Act.”
Accordingly, finding that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3(4) or 4 of the Competition Act was made out, the CCI closed the information.