IMPORTANT POINT
Vaccine reaction – In absence of medical evidence, Courts on their own will lack expertise to come to a conclusion, more particularly in a case of present nature where cause itself is required to be unravelled.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. BOPANNA, J.

1. 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) in Consumer Case No. 178 of 1999. 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. In that view, the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed by the NCDRC.

2. The brief facts leading to the complaint is that the appellant in order to achieve immunity against contracting Hepatitis B, on 10.08.1998 approached his family physician Dr. Satyajit Pathak for administering the repeat dose of the vaccine Engerix-B, along with his family members. The appellant contended that he had purchased four single dose vaccines which were administered by Dr. Satyajit Pathak, one each to him, his wife and two sons. The family members of the appellant had no adverse reaction to the said drug but insofar as the appellant, after four days of being vaccinated, the appellant felt severe pain in his left shoulder at the site of the injection and he suffered pain while moving his shoulder. It was noticed that the skin at the place where he was injected was found shiny with a bit of erythema with local tenderness. The appellant took certain analgesics under medical advice and visited an orthopaedic surgeon on 17.08.1998. The orthopaedic suggested certain radiological tests like X-ray and C.T. Scan of the left shoulder but no orthopaedic abnormality was detected.

3. The appellant thereafter contacted a general physician named Dr. Madan Phadnis and a general surgeon Dr. Makarand Paranjpe who examined the appellant had referred him to a neuro physician. After taking treatment from 13.09.1998 he was admitted in Ruby Hall Clinic where he was examined by neuro physician and the nerve conduction test was carried out and a dose of steroids was administered. The appellant contended that he developed sudden permanent disability in his shoulder which according to him was caused due to adverse reaction of the vaccine Engerix-B manufactured by the respondents and administered on 10.08.1998. The appellant was working as a Chief Executive of M/s Quicksel Communications, which effected his performance and as such he had taken up the issue with the respondent company. Since his grievance was not redressed but in the process since the appellant learnt that the pain being suffered by the appellant was due to ‘myositis’ which is a condition occurring as an adverse reaction due to the administration of Engerix-B, he again contacted the respondents. Since the response of the respondents was not satisfactory and according to the appellant since the same amounted to deficiency due to negligence which had also caused suffering to the appellant, he filed the above noted complaint before the NCDRC claiming compensation of Rs. 90,20,557/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven Only).

4. The respondents appeared before the NCDRC and filed their version disputing the claim as put forth by the appellant. The very allegation of the purchase of the said drug or its administration was denied for want of knowledge and also since no proof in that regard had been produced along with the complaint. However, insofar as the very nature of the drug and about its quality and purity details, they were referred to. It was explained with regard to ‘myositis’ since it can occur for various reasons and in different circumstances. Hence it was contended that the appellant had failed to establish that he suffered with ‘myositis’ on account of any adverse reaction due to the administration of Engerix-B.

5. Before the NCDRC, though no documents were placed on record on behalf of the appellant with regard to the purchase of the vaccine or with regard to the nat