Dark memories of the unprecedented disruption of lives and economies during the COVID-19 pandemic may have dimmed for some, but the scourge continues to cast a shadow on the health of some. Among those enduring lingering health issues, one group attributes problems linked to the adverse effects of COVID vaccines, which in India were Covaxin and Covishield. Globally, 12 billion doses of vaccines were administered during the peak of the pandemic until July 2022.

A small number of those who took the vaccines encountered serious Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI), but within that group were unfortunate individuals who lost their lives or had to endure prolonged challenges.

Supreme Court directs compensation framework

The Supreme Court has now come to their rescue and ordered the Union government to frame a no-fault compensation policy for such vaccine recipients, which would provide support to the individuals and families. The order of the bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta should make it easier for those eligible to file compensation claims without having to prove fault.

Determining fault would involve a high standard of evidence and materials to show scientific attribution of harm. Moreover, there are no implications for the government, since the compensation does not presume any liability or fault.

Neither is there any requirement to change the existing mechanism to assess AEFI or the system of surveillance and monitoring.

Need for transparency in adverse event data

There is an obligation cast on the government, though, to periodically publish the data on adverse events to keep the public informed, as per the court’s order in the Jacob Puliyel case of 2021.

Creating a no-fault compensation system for AEFI with COVID-19 vaccines is not new and was introduced at the global level by the World Health Organisation (WHO) under the COVAX programme, which offered sponsored vaccines to 92 countries under the Advance Market Commitment plan.

Global precedents and public health responsibility

A key factor was estimation of the degree of impairment from the adverse event. The Supreme Court correctly framed the need for compensation as a constitutional measure flowing from state responsibility in a public health intervention where harm has occurred.

It also cited the existence of a similar mechanism in the UK, Australia, and Japan and the Indian government’s admission that some deaths did occur after vaccination.

Considering the need for sustained support for vaccination, which was indirectly made mandatory in India by linking it to public access and travel during the pandemic, citizens need reassurance that the state is ready to extend support should an unfortunate adverse event occur.

Government’s resistance raises concerns

Thus far, the Union government has resisted such an approach, challenging orders for compensation issued by the Kerala High Court. This can only act as a disservice to vaccination in general and serve to strengthen conspiracy theories about vaccine safety.

It reflects the sad reality that governments are unwilling to commit adequate budgetary funds when it comes to health.

© Free Press Journal