Case Note & Summary
The appellant challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which dismissed his complaint regarding an alleged adverse reaction to the vaccine Engerix-B. The appellant claimed to have suffered severe pain and permanent disability after receiving the vaccine on 10.08.1998, which he attributed to 'myositis' caused by the vaccine. Despite the absence of adverse reactions in his family members who received the same vaccine, the appellant sought compensation of Rs.90,20,557/- for his suffering. The respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the appellant failed to provide proof of purchase or administration of the vaccine and that 'myositis' could arise from various causes unrelated to the vaccine. The NCDRC concluded that the appellant did not establish a causal link between the vaccine and his condition, noting the minimal incidence of 'myositis' associated with the vaccine. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's findings, emphasizing the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof and the lack of sufficient medical evidence to support his claims. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Burden of Proof - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - The appellant failed to establish that he suffered 'myositis' due to the vaccine Engerix-B, as no documentary evidence was provided to connect the vaccination with the alleged adverse reaction. The NCDRC found the evidence insufficient to support the claim of negligence or deficiency in service by the manufacturer (Paras 1-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant established a case of deficiency in service due to adverse reaction from the vaccine administered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCDRC's conclusion that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required to establish a claim of deficiency in service or negligence.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- deficiency in service
- burden of proof
- adverse reaction to vaccine
- medical negligence
