Vaccine Coverage and Safety in India

This assignment delves into the critical aspects of vaccine coverage and safety within the Indian healthcare system. It examines evidence, strategies, and obstacles related to vaccine accessibility, effectiveness, and safety. The analysis also considers the burden of disease in older populations and the importance of people-centered science in shaping health policy and systems research. Furthermore, it discusses the challenges and progress made in India's Universal Immunization Program, highlighting the need for continuous improvement and evaluation.

Running head: HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Health Care Law and Ethics
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Nature of Vaccines..........................................................................................................................3
The Indian Context..........................................................................................................................6
Critical analysis...............................................................................................................................8
Recommendation...........................................................................................................................16
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................17
Reference List................................................................................................................................19

2HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Introduction
The term ‘compensation’ refers to something awarded to someone mostly in monetary
form, for any loss suffered or injury sustained. The obligation to make compensation to the
aggrieved is embedded in the ethical principles of fairness and justice and in the human rights
itself. Compensatory loss requires that when an injury is caused to others, it is the duty of the
person causing such injury to apologize and compensate for the wrong or injury caused to the
aggrieved person (Nadimpally et al., 2017). This research paper concentrates on the urgency for
developing a compensation policy for those people who are subjected to the adverse outcomes
following immunization in India. Even when compensation is accepted, in practice, its
implementation is often hindered with complexities that are evident from the prevailing
compensation frameworks. Such challenges have been discussed in the research further. This
research paper entails argument pertaining to the necessity of providing compensation in case of
serious adverse incidents following compulsory vaccinations despite considering whether the
vaccine has led to such adverse outcomes, based on the concept of ‘no fault compensation’.
In the context of medical research, compensation frameworks guarantees that if any
problematic or inconvenient incident results or if any patient faces any untoward consequences
while undergoing any medical treatment or trial, such patient shall be entitled to adequate
compensation for the same (Jaybhaye et al., 2014). Vaccines are considered as a preventive
medicine for public health as it helps to reduce mortality and morbidity. However, vaccines
cannot be considered as an alternative to nutrition, sanitation, safe drinking water and clean
environment, which are indispensable for ensuring good health in the end. India has readily

3HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
adopted the policies of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
Children Fund (UNICEF) with respect to mass immunization.
Vaccines are usually administered to healthy people especially to children, on a mass
scale, through the Universal Immunization Program (UIP) like other medicinal products or
drugs. As per the policies, there are several types of vaccines amongst which the (UIP) for
children, is the most essential national vaccine programs. The (UIP) includes 6 vaccines such as
measles, polio, BCG, DPT, TT and DT. The vaccine for polio is considered as an indispensable
vaccine for children by WHO as it aims at eradicating polio globally (Omer & Halabi, 2016).
Therefore, these vaccines may often have an adverse impact on the people who take such
vaccines. However, in the absence of insignificant and accurate statistics of such adverse events
resulting from immunization, it fails to warrant compensation for those who suffers loss or
sustains injuries due to such immunizations (Macintosh et al., 2017)..
Since vaccines are the only biological products that are administered on a mass scale, just
ad man medical intrusions may result in adverse outcome, vaccination can also lead to adverse
events following immunization (AEFIs) such as death, hospitalization and other severe injuries.
The issue pertaining to compensating persons for the harm or injury caused to them due to the
administration of vaccines is a globally controversial matter. This research paper emphasizes on
the need for compensation and recommends the possible measures in the light of human rights
and ethics for implementing such measures in India (Kirkland, 2016).
Nature of Vaccines
Immunization is considered as a cost effective public health intervention that endows
public with effective and direct protection against the mortality and morbidity that is avertable.

4HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
As discussed above, India relies on the public sector vaccine production and adopted polices of
WHO and UNICEF. The Public Sector Units (PSUs) manufactures these vaccines although the
closure of such PSUs in 2008 has had an adverse impact upon the affordability and availability
of the vaccines. There are certain secondary vaccines that are known as Selective Immunization
for hepatitis B, cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, etc that are necessary for specific age groups or
certain special situations (Macintosh et al., 2017). Majority of these primary and the secondary
medicines are required in large quantities by the Governmental agencies, however, a shortage of
supplies often arises. Since the PSUs are not manufacturing these, the shortage is met by either
imports or indigenous private sector.
Several vaccinations are indispensible for the women during their pregnancy, in
particular such as tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria and chicken pox should be taken into
consideration. The influenza vaccination is imperative for the mother while she is pregnant as
this vaccination reduces the risk of respiratory illness, which prevents the infants from being
affected with influenza up to 6 months of age. Vaccines such as rubella are necessary for
postnatal contraception. Vaccination is an essential medical intervention that should be offered to
all women all their lives and immunization should be regarded as an indispensible medical
intrusion, forming an essential practice of gynecology and obstetrics (Macintosh et al., 2017).
Women have been gifted with the capability of giving birth to a new life and children are the
future foundation of any country, hence, it is mandatory to ensure that they are immune from
diseases, especially those, which are preventable; otherwise, a bad health shall hinder the future
of the children and development and growth of the country.
Nature of vaccines and necessity for Compensation

5HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Vaccines are said to be the most preventive intervention that safeguards people against
infectious diseases and like any other medical interventions, which might have an adverse
outcome, vaccines may also lead to adverse consequences as serious as hospitalization or even
death. A patient may die due to side effects of the vaccine that may be known or unknown,
which may happen with few or a large number of people. There may be other reasons such as
improper manufacturing, distribution or storing process or inefficient administration of the
vaccines that may cause death of the person who are administered with the vaccines.
Almost 19 countries have incorporated compensation framework either through the
courts or through compensation scheme payout for compensating persons who sustained injuries
following the vaccination. The elements of compensation in such countries include disability
pension, funeral costs, death benefits, non-economic loss and lost wages. The national
government determines eligibility of particular persons and the amount of compensation they are
entitled to claim. The factors determining eligibility include period within which the claim is
made, age, citizenship status and whether the vaccine was compulsory or recommended. The
factors that are usually considered in the 19 countries, as significant factors for determining
whether the vaccine is a mandatory vaccine or it was administered as occupational requirements.
However, in order to claim compensation for vaccine injuries, it is imperative to establish
a causal relationship between the vaccine and the adverse events following the administration of
the vaccine. In fact, it is important to assess whether compensation can be claimed without
establishing any causal relation between the vaccine and its adverse event or there is a need to
establish a causal association for becoming entitled to compensation for vaccine related injuries
in India.

6HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
The Indian Context
The government of India remains to be the sole largest buyer and maker of vaccines
unlike drugs and therefore the government has a huge responsibility to determine the supplier
and price of the vaccines in the best interest of public health. The government in large quantities
obtains the vaccines that are required for state or national program; such vaccines either are
subjected to price regulation or are reserved exclusively for the public sector. This is because, the
public sector units are responsible for ensuring consistent supply and manufacturing of the
affordable vaccines for the national programs. This would prevent the vaccines from being
affected by the market variations. However, such vaccines are available at remunerative prices
there is an assurance of government procurement and market commitments and prompt payment
of such vaccines.
The private sectors may co-operate the public sectors in meeting the national programs
while levying competitive prices on other vaccines to meet the foreign markets. This way the
government of the country is capable of enabling the indigenous private and the public sector
firms to have access to the overseas markets. Further, the Government of India is equally
responsible for ensuring that the PSUs have necessary financial, managerial or administrative
support that is necessary for complying with good laboratory practices or manufacturing
practices and other regulatory norms that are essential for export and domestic markets.
However, the vaccines are useful only if it is available to people in need and in good
condition as well. The proper administration of the vaccines is another essential factor and such
administration of vaccine should be done at the right time. The government of the country has
made huge investments for the purpose of strengthening the building capacities and
infrastructure of the healthcare staffs responsible for administration of vaccines. However,

7HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
despite such planning, there are huge gaps that are present between the planning and
implementation of the program not only in large states but in rural areas in particular. The (UIP)
has low coverage of primary vaccines, which reduces the efficacy of the vaccines and covers the
true demand for vaccines.
While the therapeutic vaccines and antisera are administered only to patients who have
been diagnosed with a condition that can improve with treatment such as Tetanus and anti-rabies
vaccines, the preventive vaccines are administered are administered to normal population.
However, there are certain Universal Vaccines but contrary to the description; the vaccines are
applicable to children and pregnant women. Some of the vaccines that are described to be useful
to adults but in reality, they are hardly of any use to all the adults and are often used for selective
immunization of people belonging to high-risk groups.
Most of the vaccine related injuries results from the widespread of a vaccine merely
because such vaccine is easily affordable and is safe and effective. A particular vaccine may not
be as effective for all people as it is effective to any particular person (Roopa & Aravind, 2017).
Vaccines are to administered only if they are recommended by the medical professionals or the
vaccine s are of mandatory nature which is necessary for preventing avertable disease such as
polio vaccines. The vaccines that are administered beyond UIP are considered as unethical and
the promotion of such vaccines through advertising, aid agencies or advocacy by individuals is
an unethical conduct.
In India, the measures taken to conduct surveillance of adverse events following the
immunization revels data and reports that forms an important source for determining whether the
injury that has resulted from the administration of vaccines is justified enough for the aggrieved

8HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
person to claim compensation against the same. In regards to the compensation system relating
to adverse events following immunizations, it is important to take into consideration whether
there is any casual connection between the vaccine in issue and the injury suffered by the
aggrieved person. In the absence of ‘markers’, it becomes difficult to prove the causal link
between the vaccine and its related injuries. A detailed immunization report enables to determine
the presence of causality and demonstrates an effective surveillance of the adverse events that
results from the administration of the vaccines to assess whether any injuries complained against
is a direct result of the administered vaccine.
In India, the government established a sub-committee with a view to strengthen the
national AEFI surveillance system in the country and the committee is entrusted with the
responsibility of determining the causality of vaccine related injuries. The sub-committee works
under the guidance of the Immunization Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(MoHFW). This assessment procedure is based on the model of Causality Assessment Protocol
of the World Health Organization (WHO). In legal action for tort brought by the aggrieved
person for assessment of causality association between the vaccine and the injuries sustained by
the defendant, it is imperative to establish a direct link between the injuries or death that are the
outcomes of the vaccines administered to the aggrieved party or the deceased person(Roopa &
Aravind, 2017).
Critical analysis
Arguments for Compensation Schemes for vaccine injuries
The arguments in support of vaccine-injury the compensation include economic and
political pressures, growing confidence and litigation threats in population-based programs and

9HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
making certain of sustainability in vaccine supply. Nevertheless, an underlying principle of
compensation scheme is the principle of justice and fairness. In the absence of any formal
compensation scheme, the sole source of compensation is the court where the claim of the
aggrieved person shall be based on tort law. According to the law of torts, the aggrieved party
must establish that the defendant had committed a wrong against him/her and that the wrong was
caused intentionally, amounting to the tort of negligence (Roopa & Aravind, 2017). The only
issue with this process, in respect of vaccination, is that often there is no negligent party and
compensation claimed before the courts can be both unpredictable and inequitable, resulting in
high pecuniary awards to some parties while parties who do not seek any legal remedy does not
become entitled to any compensation.
A compensation scheme for vaccine related injuries removes the uncertainty that is
present in respect of liability under torts law for the manufacturers. A compensation scheme
provides a more efficient, fair and stable approach for injured parties. Litigation is a costly and
restricted way, which may be inaccessible for several vaccine recipients (Roopa & Aravind,
2017). Furthermore, compensation schemes usually avert divergence of the drug companies
against people who receives vaccines by way of negative media coverage and litigation. Several
countries have implemented compensation schemes as a gesture of community harmony.
Michelle Mello, the ethicist, argues that the term ‘solidarity’ implies members of the society are
not solely responsible for the risks that might result from solidarity.
Vaccines injuries vary from one person to another and can be complex. Children are
more susceptible to the injuries related to vaccines, and must be taken care of, for their entire
lives and they might not qualify for any other advantages under the accident insurance schemes.
Under a vaccination program, the uninjured and the injured party pay unequal shares of the

10HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
social expense that is incurred while ensuring social good of the entire community. According to
Mello, given that the underlying principle of compensation scheme is fairness, justice and
solidarity, the compensation schemes must be such that it safeguards the uninjured persons, thus,
unintentionally ‘free riding’ on the injured parties(Demicheli, Barale & Rivetti, 2015).
Six elements are common to all the compensation schemes include administration and
funding, process and decision-making, eligibility, litigation rights and elements of compensation.
Most of the compensation schemes in the countries with established compensation programs are
enacted and implemented by the government, which occurs at the national level. The source of
funding compensation schemes for any vaccine related injuries demonstrates where the decision-
making power lies within the country. In most of the countries, the compensation schemes are
regarded as secondary source of funding for disability and medical expenses (Demicheli, Barale
& Rivetti, 2015). Generally, patients receive primary support from private or national public
insurers. Under such circumstances, compensation schemes can be cost-effective, as it does not
have to cover the entire expense that might be taken into consideration in a product or tort
liability case.
With respect to the eligibility of the vaccines that are covered by the compensation
schemes, there are variations. Some schemes cover recommended or mandatory vaccines while
other schemes cover all licensed medicines. However, such schemes require that their threshold
injury be satisfied prior to making claims for compensation. For instance, in New Zealand, an
injury should be severe in nature for claiming any compensation. The 19 countries except
Sweden and Finland, have established compensation schemes have passed legislation to enact
the compensation schemes and the governmental departments are responsible for operating
programs in most countries (Demicheli, Barale & Rivetti, 2015).

11HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
The no-fault vaccine injury compensation program are based on the concept that the
adverse outcome is not the result of a specific industry or individual but has resulted from an
unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. However, the standard of proof that is required to be
established to claim compensation is that there is a causal connection between the injury and the
vaccine which has been alleged to have caused such injury.
In order to ensure that the claimants resort to compensation schemes to claim
compensation for any vaccine related injuries, the compensation mechanisms must offer the
claimants a compensation payments and a hassle-free procedure that is much easier and
predictable than the litigation or the tort system (Roopa & Aravind, 2017). Several countries
incorporate statutory provisions that permit the claimant to seek damages either through a
compensation scheme or courts but they are not entitled to seek damages through both the
schemes.
There is no official vaccine compensation program for injuries or deaths resulting from
vaccines. The only remedy available to the aggrieved persons or the complainants is to approach
the legal system of the country, which is not only an expensive process but also lengthy
procedure that may take time from 10 to 15 years. In addition, it is very difficult to establish the
causality connection between the injuries or deaths and the vaccine that is alleged to be the cause
of such injuries or deaths (Singh, 2015).
In the case of Dr. Durga Nursing Home v Dhanasekaran [2003], the petitioner filed a
petition in the District Consumer Court against the respondent for being negligent and using
expired vaccines. The court awarded a compensation of INR 100,000 for hardship and mental
distress and INR 5000 towards costs on the ground that the hospital did not have an adequate or

12HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
an effective storage system and its ambulance service was also inadequate, hence the hospital
lacked proper medical services and is liable. However, an appeal was made in the state consumer
court where the court found that the evidence regarding the defected quality of the vaccines were
adduced was not sufficient. Nevertheless, the court held that the instruments that were required
were not sufficient and proper and the hospital lacked ambulance service as well. Hence, the
court awarded compensation to the petitioner. This case is a landmark case that establishes the
necessity to concentrate on the injuries that are claimed to be the consequence of the entire
administration process of the vaccines, including the facilities for ambulances and storage.
In another case, the state of Gujarat made an appeal against a compensation that was
awarded to the petitioner on the ground that a negligent administration of a triple vaccine has
caused permanent disability and deformity to the petitioner. The appeal made by the state was
upheld by the High court and the court reversed the decree, staying the money decree passed by
the trial court in favor of the petitioner (Sheikh, George & Gilson, 2014). The High Court had
dismissed the order passed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to
establish the causality connection between the vaccine and the injury suffered, that is, there was
no adequate evidence to establish negligence in the administration of the vaccine that caused
such injury to the petitioner. It took 15 long years for the court to dive its decision since the
petitioner had initiated the suit (Mirzoev et al., 2013).
These cases highlight the critical issues that arise when it comes to claim compensation
for any injuries or deaths that results from vaccines or its administration process. One of the
issues is that the tort system puts the burden of proving any adverse events following the
vaccination (Francis et al., 2017). Consequently, it has an impact on the claim of the aggrieved
parties to compensation. The countries that have an established compensation mechanism have

13HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
also reported to face the same problem that is inbuilt in the legal system. Nevertheless, the
nations upheld the fact that the state is ultimately responsible to the people who sustains injury
and becomes subject to death (Macintosh et al., 2017).
Social, cultural, economical, political barriers or issues
Several reasons that causes hindrances in ensuring that the vaccine administration process
is implemented properly. Since the vaccine administration takes place on a mass scale,
geographical diversity, cultural diversity, politically diversity are certain factors in India that
often hinders the implementation of vaccine administration properly (MacDonald et al., 2015).
Given the significant proportion of population, it becomes challenging to reach out to the
migrant population. There are inadequate hospital services as is evident from the cases. There is
either lack of monitoring and surveillance, lack of micro planning at district level and lack of
coordination between the central and state governments. These factors impede the opportunities
to ensure effective administration of vaccines.
Legal and Ethical Issues
Vaccines are considered as universally accepted public health intervention and a
profitable tool for the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. There has been an incline in the
increased rate of vaccine related injuries in India. Human Rights and Public health have an
inherent connection and the implementation of the public health programs can be successful only
if people’s rights are respected. A compulsory vaccine program usually ignores the rights of
people that would give rise to ethical and legal issues with respect to vaccination (Jesani &
Johari, 2017).

14HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
In regards to the compensation claim that could be made against any vaccine related
injuries, it is mandatory to establish that there has been some connection between the vaccine
and the injury sustained by the claimant. The claimant must establish that a vaccine can be said
to be unsafe, only if it has caused illness, disease, injury or any form of harm to the aggrieved
party. Hence, it becomes very important for the independent experts to analyze the safety date
with respect to the vaccines and a proper contamination test should be conducted to ensure it
safety prior to administration to the targeted public. In the event, the vaccine is for children, extra
care should be taken to ensure that the vaccine is safe (Tozzi et al., 2013)..
The country gives more emphasis on research work relating to vaccines for the purpose
of eliminating diseases. Huge expenses are incurred in conducting research for new vaccines
with a view to include such vaccines in the Universal Immunization Program (UIP) or to
recommend the use of such vaccines in the private sector, which would serve two-fold purposes.
Firstly, such vaccines shall eradicate diseases and secondly, it would enable the vaccine
manufacturing industry to earn long-tem financial gains (Okayasu et al., 2014).
Vaccination being a preventive healthcare measures is advantageous for both individual
and public health proportionately but the risks and harm may have different impact on the
individuals proportionately (Crawford et al., 2014). There is a common assumption that vaccines
are completely safe but may not suit some people. This is because the administration of vaccine
may result in adverse events or serious adverse reactions in some people. Therefore, there is a
need to make proper assessment prior to the administration of the vaccines (Kahn et al., 2014).
Another significant legal issue that augments with respect to administration of vaccines is
that some people who are affected by the vaccines usually feel reluctant to acknowledge the

15HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
problem (Sarmiento et al., 2016). This is because, in India, there is no official established
compensation scheme; hence, people are left with the option to approach litigation. The litigation
system is an expensive and lengthy procedure that might take years to administer justice to the
aggrieved person. Moreover, this legal issue often gives rise to an ethical dilemma that even if
death or injury sustained by the claimant has resulted from the administration of vaccines, in
most of the cases, the result of injury or death are found to be something else but vaccines. The
authorities simply deny or manipulate with the results of the injuries by stating that the claims
made against the injuries or deaths is not related to the vaccine (Tafuri et al., 2015). The injury
caused by the vaccine or the administration process of the vaccine is not significant enough to
establish that causality connection exists between the vaccine and the injury sustained by the
aggrieved party. The legal issues and the necessity for an inquiry with respect to the death or
injury sustained by the aggrieved person is simply set aside (Lahariya, 2014).
The infants and the adolescents are vaccinated against not only the common diseases or
infections that infants are usually prone to, but they are also vaccinated for diseases that they
may not be exposed to or where there are other easier procedures to prevent the child from such
disease (Halabi, & Omer, 2017). The nations are eager to see a world that is free of diseases
irrespective of the fact whether the child shall be exposed to such disease at all. Under such
circumstances, the benefits that the individuals are subjected to is unknown because it is not
certain whether individual has been protected from such vaccination or whether the person is
merely lucky enough not to suffer from the virus (Ferrer et al., 2014).
Legal and ethical debates have arisen regarding the implementation of vaccination
program whether informed consent should be taken of the people prior to the administration of
the vaccines (Mastroianni & Henry, 2017). There is a fear that if people would inform the public

16HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
about the vaccines prior to the administration, there may arise unnecessary fear about vaccine
administration process. Informed consent is indispensible under the code of medical ethics and
law. This is because vaccine is a medical intervention that is prone to risk of adverse events
following immunizations, which may result in injuries or even deaths. It is essential that the
rights and autonomy of an individual is respected and make public health strategies that are
compatible with the dignity of human rights. Ethics and implementation issues may be addressed
by adhering to the global standards (Kothia et al., 2015).
In the absence of necessities such as health, adequate safe drinking water and nutrition,
medicines in developing countries augments the ethical controversies with respect to the
priorities of the government health programs, especially when there is a shortage of resources
and health is not given priority (Dickson et al., 2016). The developing countries faces two major
hindrances, one is lack of resources for purchasing the vaccines and the other one is to
implement a satisfactory vaccine program given the inadequate hospital facilities. In countries
where healthcare is lagging behind and children are dying of malnourishment, it is expected that
the government must establish effective compensation mechanism for enabling the claimant to
claim compensation against injuries that has resulted from the administration process of the
vaccine (Patel et al., 2011).
Recommendation
A national vaccine policy that is based on the principles of public health and primary
health care to prevent morbidity and mortality due to communicable diseases that affects large
populations, especially women and children. The National Health program (UIP) cannot be
implemented successfully in the absence of bureaucratic and political support at all levels. The

17HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
injuries that results from the administration of vaccines can be reduced largely with better
monitoring and surveillance (Rodwin, 2014).
In regards to the no-fault compensation scheme against an adverse event following
immunization, which is implemented in 19 countries, should be adopted in India, as the country
does not have any official compensation scheme. This program shall be beneficial to as it
includes disability pensions, medical costs and benefits for death or loss of non-economic nature.
As discussed above, most of the countries permit the claimants to claim compensation either
through courts or through the compensation schemes (Jenkins et al., 2016). In the absence of any
compensation scheme, the aggrieved parties approach the courts and bring legal action on
negligent tort. The compensation scheme is not as lengthy or expensive as the litigation
procedure. The claimants must establish causal connection between the vaccine and the injuries
resulting from it otherwise, the court shall not award compensation to the aggrieved person.
However, the compensation scheme relieves the claimants from establishing the connection
because the community shall be responsible for any injury resulting from the vaccination owing
to the fact that it is ultimately the community that is being prevented from diseases by the
vaccination program (Nadimpally et al., 2017).
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be inferred that it is essential to comprehend the public
health issues in the context of human behavior, population’s vulnerabilities and the political,
social, economic and cultural needs of each individual and country. It is important to connect the
public health program to the human rights of those people who dwell in varied conditions
suffering from peculiar disabilities, diseases and other health related issues (Vashishtha &

18HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Kumar, 2013). One vaccine may not be suitable to all the people, hence, it is important to
address the ethical and legal issues that are associated with vaccines. It is equally important to
address issues related to the development process of vaccines not only by training the concerned
persons but also with the help of open and transparent regulation process, which also includes
decision-making processes (Prince, et al., 2015).
Vaccine related injuries compensation programs have been gaining importance as an
essential element of any successful vaccination program. These programs have been used for the
last 50 years with the view to ensure protection of the interest of the entire community against
any adverse events following immunization (Kahn et al., 2014). These programs ensure that the
affected persons who claims for compensation for the injuries or loss sustained due to the
vaccines are compensated adequately and are taken care of. There are various compensation
schemes with distinct frameworks and approaches that are implemented worldwide such as the
no-fault compensation program, which relieves the complainant from establishing a causality
connection between the vaccines and the injuries, resulted from it, which is mandatory to become
entitled to compensation in the traditional legal system (Shrivastwa et al., 2016). However, under
this compensation scheme, since the vaccination program prevents the community from being
affected by communicable diseases, hence, it is the responsibility of the community to safeguard
the interest of the people by ensuring that they are compensated adequately.
The compensation schemes operate better and more effectively in a well-established,
comprehensive national social welfare systems. The 19 countries which have adopted the
compensation schemes have been reported to have a low costs in comparison to the expenses
incurred in litigation. In the first decade of 21st century, the acceptance of vaccine related injury
compensation has been gaining popularity and these schemes are operational in countries that are

19HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
not industrialized such as Europe and the United States (Vaidya & Hamde, 2016). The present
scenario in India requires recognition of an injury that has resulted from vaccination, which
makes it a necessary to form an appropriate compensation policy. This would enable the affected
parties to have an option to claim compensation either by approaching the courts or through the
compensation schemes. Despite the reluctance of the government to depart from the adversarial
approach to provide compensation, there is a well-built argument that establishes the necessity of
the universal implementation of the compensation scheme programs in the country.

20HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Reference List
Crawford, N. W., Clothier, H., Hodgson, K., Selvaraj, G., Easton, M. L., & Buttery, J. P. (2014).
Active surveillance for adverse events following immunization. Expert review of vaccines, 13(2),
265-276.
Demicheli, V., Barale, A., & Rivetti, A. (2015). Vaccines for women for preventing neonatal
tetanus. The Cochrane Library.
Dickson, K., Hinds, K., Burchett, H., Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2016). No-fault
compensation schemes: A rapid realist review.
Dr. Durga Nursing Home v Dhanasekaran [2003]
Ferrer, H. B., Trotter, C., Hickman, M., & Audrey, S. (2014). Barriers and facilitators to HPV
vaccination of young women in high-income countries: a qualitative systematic review and
evidence synthesis. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 700.
Francis, M. R., Nohynek, H., Larson, H., Balraj, V., Mohan, V. R., Kang, G., & Nuorti, J. P.
(2017). Factors associated with routine childhood vaccine uptake and reasons for non-
vaccination in India: 1998–2008. Vaccine.
Halabi, S. F., & Omer, S. B. (2017). A Global Vaccine Injury Compensation
System. Jama, 317(5), 471-472.
Halabi, S. F., & Omer, S. B. (2017). Legal Complexities of Global Vaccine Compensation
Systems—Reply. Jama, 317(18), 1912-1912.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/10-081901.pdf

21HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Immunization Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Jaybhaye, D., Dahire, P., Nagaonkar, A., Vedpathak, V., Deo, D., & Kawalkar, U. (2014).
Needle stick injuries among health care workers in tertiary care hospital in tertiary care hospital
of rural India.
Jenkins, R. C., Boelens, B. W., Aasheim, K. L., & Gravenstein, N. (2016). No-fault
compensation for ventilator-dependent children: a reasonable settlement value for lifetime
attendant care. Risk management and healthcare policy, 9, 193.
Jesani, A., & Johari, V. (2017). Ethical and legal challenges of vaccines and vaccination:
Reflections. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2(2).
Kahn, G. D., Thacker, D., Nimbalkar, S., & Santosham, M. (2014). High cost is the primary
barrier reported by physicians who prescribe vaccines not included in India’s Universal
Immunization Program. Journal of tropical pediatrics, 60(4), 287-291.
Kahn, G. D., Thacker, D., Nimbalkar, S., & Santosham, M. (2014). High cost is the primary
barrier reported by physicians who prescribe vaccines not included in India’s Universal
Immunization Program. Journal of tropical pediatrics, 60(4), 287-291.
Kirkland, A. (2016). Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury. NYU Press.
Kothia, N. R., Bommireddy, V. S., Devaki, T., Vinnakota, N. R., Ravoori, S., Sanikommu, S., &
Pachava, S. (2015). Assessment of the status of national oral health policy in India. International
journal of health policy and management, 4(9), 575.
Lahariya, C. (2014). A brief history of vaccines & vaccination in India. The Indian journal of
medical research, 139(4), 491.

22HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Lahariya, C. (2014). A brief history of vaccines & vaccination in India. The Indian journal of
medical research, 139(4), 491.
MacDonald, N. E., Guichard, S., Amarasinghe, A., & Balakrishnan, M. R. (2015). Strengthening
of causality assessment of adverse events following immunization in the WHO South East Asia
and Western Pacific regions: Lessons from the 2014 SEAR inter-country
workshop. Vaccine, 33(48), 6902-6907.
Macintosh, J. L., Eden, L. M., Luthy, K. E., & Schouten, A. E. (2017). Global Immunizations:
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Worldwide. MCN: The American Journal of
Maternal/Child Nursing, 42(3), 139-145.
Mastroianni, A. C., & Henry, L. M. (2017). Legal Complexities of Global Vaccine
Compensation Systems. Jama, 317(18), 1911-1912.
Mirzoev, T., Green, A., Gerein, N., Pearson, S., Bird, P., Ha, B. T. T., ... & Soors, W. (2013).
Role of evidence in maternal health policy processes in Vietnam, India and China: findings from
the HEPVIC project. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9(4), 493-
511.
Nadimpally, S., Banerjee, S., Venkatachalam, D., & Bhagianadh, D. (2017). An idea whose time
has come: Compensation for vaccine-related injuries and death in India. Indian journal of
medical ethics, 2(2), 93.
Nadimpally, S., Banerjee, S., Venkatachalam, D., & Bhagianadh, D. (2017). An idea whose time
has come: Compensation for vaccine-related injuries and death in India. Indian journal of
medical ethics, 2(2), 93.

23HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Okayasu, H., Sutter, R. W., Jafari, H. S., Takane, M., & Aylward, R. B. (2014). Affordable
inactivated poliovirus vaccine: strategies and progress. The Journal of infectious
diseases, 210(suppl_1), S459-S464.
Omer, S. B., & Halabi, S. F. (2016). Evidence, Strategies, and Challenges for Assuring Vaccine
Availability, Efficacy, and Safety. Global Management of Infectious Disease After Ebola, 223.
Omer, S. B., & Halabi, S. F. (2016). Evidence, Strategies, and Challenges for Assuring Vaccine
Availability, Efficacy, and Safety. Global Management of Infectious Disease After Ebola, 223.
Patel, V., Parikh, R., Nandraj, S., Balasubramaniam, P., Narayan, K., Paul, V. K., ... & Reddy, K.
S. (2015). Assuring health coverage for all in India. The Lancet, 386(10011), 2422-2435.
Prince, M. J., Wu, F., Guo, Y., Robledo, L. M. G., O'Donnell, M., Sullivan, R., & Yusuf, S.
(2015). The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and
practice. The Lancet, 385(9967), 549-562.
Rodwin, M. A. (2014). Compensating pharmaceutical Injuries in the Absence of Fault. Browser
Download This Paper.
Roopa, A. K., & Aravind, K. (2017). PREVALENCE AND CLINICAL STUDY OF
PREGNANT WOMEN WITH HEPATITIS B INFECTION-AN INSTITUTIONAL
EXPERIENCE. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-
JEMDS, 6(11), 888-890.
Sarmiento, J. D., Villada, F., Orrego, J. C., Franco, J. L., & Trujillo-Vargas, C. M. (2016).
Adverse events following immunization in patients with primary
immunodeficiencies. Vaccine, 34(13), 1611-1616.

24HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS
Sheikh, K., George, A., & Gilson, L. (2014). People-centred science: strengthening the practice
of health policy and systems research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(1), 19.
Shrivastwa, N., Gillespie, B. W., Lepkowski, J. M., & Boulton, M. L. (2016). Vaccination
Timeliness in Children Under India’s Universal Immunization Program. The Pediatric infectious
disease journal, 35(9), 955-960.
Singh, P. (2015). Performance pay and information: Reducing child undernutrition in
India. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 112, 141-163.
Tafuri, S., Gallone, M. S., Calabrese, G., & Germinario, C. (2015). Adverse events following
immunization: is this time for the use of WHO causality assessment?.
Tozzi, A. E., Asturias, E. J., Balakrishnan, M. R., Halsey, N. A., Law, B., & Zuber, P. L. (2013).
Assessment of causality of individual adverse events following immunization (AEFI): a WHO
tool for global use. Vaccine, 31(44), 5041-5046.
Vaidya, S. R., & Hamde, V. S. (2016). Is it right time to introduce mumps vaccine in India’s
Universal immunization program?. Indian pediatrics, 53(6), 469-473.
Vashishtha, V. M., & Kumar, P. (2013). 50 years of Immunization in India: Progress and Future.

25HEALTH CARE LAW AND ETHICS