The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in a case involving Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, a drug manufacturer. The NCDRC had ruled that the company was not liable for any deficiency of service or defect related to the administration of a vaccine.
Lack of Evidence
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on several factors. Firstly, it pointed out that the complainant failed to prove that he suffered an adverse reaction as a result of the vaccination. The Court noted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a connection between the vaccine, an alleged condition called “myositis,” and the complainant’s health issues.
Doctor-Patient Relationship
Secondly, the Court highlighted the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. It stated that the doctor should have advised the patient properly regarding the potential risks and side effects of the vaccination. In this case, the Court found that the doctor’s advice and guidance were crucial in ensuring that the patient made an informed decision about vaccination.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that establishing a causal link between a medical procedure, such as vaccination, and adverse reactions requires substantial evidence. Additionally, it underscores the role of healthcare professionals in providing patients with comprehensive information about medical treatments to enable them to make informed choices. In this case, the Court concluded that the complainant had not met the burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
