New Delhi (Agency): The Supreme Court of India recently rejected a plea against GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, stating that the complainant had not adequately proven “deficiency in service.” The case revolved around the administration of the hepatitis B vaccine, Engerix-B.
According to the case details, the man who filed the complaint sought immunity against Hepatitis B for himself and his family. While his family members had no adverse reactions to the vaccine, the man claimed he experienced severe shoulder pain and developed myositis (muscle inflammation) four days after being vaccinated. He argued that the vaccine led to a permanent disability in his shoulder.
Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that the drug is certified and requires a prescription. They pointed out that if the same vaccine was administered to all family members without issue, questions could be raised about whether the vaccine was properly administered in the man’s case. The Justices noted that the family physician might also be responsible and should ideally have been included in the legal proceedings.
The court concluded that the absence of myositis listed as a side effect in the vaccine’s documentation did not prove “deficiency of service” on the part of GlaxoSmithKline. “The allegations by the appellant would also make the said family doctor responsible, and ideally he ought to have been a party respondent to the proceedings,” the bench said.
The ruling came as a relief to GlaxoSmithKline, who faced allegations of deficiency in service concerning the Engerix-B vaccine. The Justices stated that while the complainant assumes he has suffered myositis due to the vaccine, he had not presented enough evidence to establish this claim.
This case was an appeal challenging an earlier ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had also found in favor of GlaxoSmithKline.
