Hearings on a case involving the claimed side effects of the Covid-19 vaccine, brought by two parents whose children passed away after receiving the shot, are scheduled to resume at the Supreme Court. Venugopalan Govindan from Tamil Nadu and Rachana Gangu from Hyderabad say that the negative side effects of the Covishield vaccine killed their daughters, who were 19 and 20 years old. While the government’s attorney maintains that immunization was voluntary and that millions of people received the vaccine safely, the parents contend that the government misled the public about the vaccine’s safety.
The government’s attorney requested that the petition be dismissed during a hearing in October 2023, claiming that the vaccination campaign and COVID-19 are now over. The attorney underlined that immunizations were optional and that over 220 billion shots had been given without any problems. The government also asserted that the program was founded on consent and that its regulations never required vaccinations.
The parents’ attorney, however, retorted that the government had deceived the public by asserting that the vaccination was completely safe while, in fact, numerous people—including children—had passed away as a result of negative side effects. They charged that the government had failed to supply sufficient information about the vaccine’s hazards, especially with regard to serious side effects like thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), which were not mentioned throughout the immunization procedure. They contended that no documentation of these occurrences was maintained, and physicians were not trained on how to manage such adverse events.
In order to speed up justice for individuals injured by the vaccine, the parents’ petition also asks for the establishment of vaccine courts and fast-track tribunals. In order to look into their daughters’ deaths and create a procedure for the early identification and management of adverse events after vaccination (AEFI), they have also asked for the creation of an impartial expert medical board.
The petitioners claim that early warning signs of possible vaccine-related damage were ignored by the authorities. They argue that in order to strengthen their argument for compensation and an open probe into the fatalities, the authorities purposefully minimized major side effects and only acknowledged moderate reactions.
The Supreme Court will keep considering these arguments, weighing the government’s defense of its immunization program and public health initiatives against the bereaved parents’ allegations.
SOURCE :
ECONOMIC TIMES
