Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was ordered to pay compensation of ₹74.5 lakh to a Mumbai-based patient, and ₹65 lakh to a Delhi-based patient, for their faulty hip implants.
But long past the deadline of April 8, J&J has challenged the order in the Delhi High Court and stated that it was willing to pay only ₹25 lakh to those affected.
However, the Drug Controller General of India (DGCI) is insisting that the company pays up according to the compensation amount decided by it.
“The company has to pay as per the amount derived by a formula we have put in place. We don’t agree with the company paying only ₹25 lakh. We have already requested the court about the same,” Dr. S Eswara Reddy, the DCGI, told The Hindu .
A Central Expert Committee had devised the compensation formula based on the disability, age and risk factors of patients. The compensation would be between ₹30 lakh to ₹1.2 crore.
The metal-on-metal Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip implant manufactured by J&J’s subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics was recalled worldwide in 2010 following reports that it was leaching metal and causing severe pain, fluid accumulation and metal poisoning in the patients. In India, nearly 4,700 surgeries were carried out using the faulty hip joint. But the Mumbai-based patient is only the first case where the pharmaceutical giant was directed to pay compensation by April 8. The compensation for the Delhi-based patient, who is the second one in line, was announced two weeks ago.
Mumbai-based patient Vijay Vojhala, who was implanted with the faulty artificial hip in 2008, questioned the basis on which J&J was offering ₹25 lakh. “First and foremost, they fitted people with a defective implant. People like me have suffered immensely, have undergone multiple surgeries, and our bodies have never been the same. How can they try to get away with such a heinous act of negligence by simply offering ₹25 lakh?” Mr. Vojhala asked, adding that in the United States, the company had paid hefty sums to patients.
When The Hindu reached out to J&J, a company spokesperson said that they would not be able to comment as the matter is sub judice.
