Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders Limitation Period Under Section 18-A of Rent Act Mandatory, Delay Not Condonable – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NRI Landlord's Eviction Against Tenant Custom Department Cannot Revive Time-Barred Show Cause Notices After Seven Years Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Notices to JBS Exports Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Decision, Says 'No Evidence of Defect or Negligence' in Vaccine Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment today, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal against Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., stating that there was "no evidence of defect or negligence" in the administration of the Hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B. The appellant, Prakash Bang, had alleged that the vaccine led to an adverse reaction causing 'myositis' and permanent disability in his shoulder.

Justice A.S. Bopanna, in his judgment, noted, "The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ('NCDRC' for short). Through the said order, the NCDRC has held that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case in regard to either any defect in the drug in question or any negligence amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent who is the manufacturer of the drug."

The Court also emphasized the lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the appellant's claims. "As noted, there is no documentary evidence placed on record to indicate the very basic issue of the purchase of the vaccine and the same being administered," the judgment read.

The appellant had relied on affidavits from his family physician and his uncle, both doctors, to establish his case. However, the Court found these affidavits lacking in evidentiary value. "Except for the affidavit filed by the doctors known to the appellant, there is no other evidence available on record," the judgment stated.

On the issue of 'myositis' being a potential adverse reaction, the Court found it not to be a 'deficiency of service,' given the minimal incidence rate of 0.02 per million doses and the detailed certification procedure followed for the drug. "In any event, from the very details furnished by the respondents, the instance of 'myositis' being minimal to the extent of 0.02 in a million, to contend that there was negligence on the part of the respondent is also not acceptable," the Court observed.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the NCDRC's decision. "We are of the opinion that the NCDRC has not committed any error so as to call for interference with the impugned order," concluded Justice Bopanna.

The judgment has set a precedent for similar cases involving allegations of medical negligence and consumer complaints against pharmaceutical companies.

Date of Decision: September 05, 2023

Prakash Bang vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.        

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/05-Sep-2023_Prakash_Bang_Vs_Glaxo_Smithkline_Ltd.pdf"]

Similar News