PRAKASH BANG Vs. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGING defect in goods/drugs and negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/manufacturer of vaccine, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking a total compensation of Rs. 90,20,557 from the opposite parties under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_76_LAWS(NCD)4_2012.htm</FRM>

(2.) IN nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainant being a Chief Executive of a Quiksel Communication firm with a view to achieve immunity against contracting Hepatitis -B, had on 10.8.1998 approached his family physician Dr. Satyajit Pathak for administering the repeat dose of the vaccine Engerix -B along with his family members. Four single dose vaccines were purchased and were administered by Dr. Pathak one each to his wife and two sons. Three family members of the complainant had no reaction of any kind due to administration of the said drug through injection but after four days of the administration of the drug, the complainant felt severe pain in his left shoulder at the site of the injection and found himself unable to move his shoulder due to pain. On local examination; his skin at the side of injection was found shiny with a bit of arythema with local tenderness. Complainant took certain analgesic under the medical advice and first saw an orthopaedic surgeon on 17.8.1998 who suggested certain radiological tests like X -ray and C.T. Scan of the left shoulder, which were conducted but no orthopaedic abnormality was detected. Complainant then contacted a General Physician by the name of Dr. Madan Phadnis and thereafter a General Surgeon, Dr. Makarand Paranjpe, who investigated the problem of the complainant and thereafter the complainant was referred to a Neuro Physician and after getting the treatment over a period on 13.9.1998 he was admitted in Ruby Hall Clinic where he was independently examined by Neuro Physician and thereafter nerve conduction test were done and dose of steroids was stepped up and IX Cephotaxime and Amikacin were started, which showed improvement in the clinical condition of the complainant so far as it related to movement of joint of the shoulder of the complainant. According to the complainant, he developed a permanent disability in his upper limb and shoulder which he presumed was caused due to adverse reaction of the drug Engerix -B manufactured by the opposite parties and which was administered to him on 10.8.1998. He accordingly took up the matter with the opposite party by a communication dated 5.10.1998 in response to the same opposite party No. 1 by a communication dated 13.10.1998 promptly responded thereby giving an overall picture in regard to the adverse reaction, which the drug could carry in a very minimal cases and the explanation about the circumstances in which such reaction could occur. Not satisfied the complainant again corresponded with the opposite party and opposite party wanted the complainant to complete a particular query proforma and to send the same and to send biopsy of the part, which appears was never sent, although, the report of Dr. Pathak giving out the historical background was furnished. The complainant not being satisfied with the response of the opposite party filed the present complaint.

(3.) INITIALLY the O.P. No. 1 M/s. Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd., Bangalore was arrayed as the sole opposite party but it would appear that after an objection was taken by the said opposite party that they are not the manufacturer of the drug and it was on request made on behalf of the complainant pursuant to anorderdated27.1.2010M/s.Glaxo Smithk line Biologicals S.A.Rue Du Tilleul 13/1332, Genval, Belgium was arrayed as opposite party No. 2.