- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Johnson & Johnson To Compensate Faulty Hip Implant Affected Patients Rs 25 Lakh Each, Company Informs Delhi HC
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Patients affected by faulty Johnson & Johnson Pvt Ltd’s Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip implants will be paid compensation worth Rs 25 lakh each, the company has informed the Delhi High Court.If the Centre provides the company with a list of more patients who had received revision surgeries after the hip implant, the company would pay Rs 25 lakh to them as...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Patients affected by faulty Johnson & Johnson Pvt Ltd’s Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip implants will be paid compensation worth Rs 25 lakh each, the company has informed the Delhi High Court.
If the Centre provides the company with a list of more patients who had received revision surgeries after the hip implant, the company would pay Rs 25 lakh to them as well, after verifying their claims, the company stated.
The company’s statement came at a hearing of a challenge mounted by it against a press release issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which had asked it to pay compensation to all affected patients.
Earlier, the company had contended in its challenge before the Delhi High Court that the Centre has no power to constitute expert committees or issue directions to pay compensation under the Drug and Cosmetics Act.
However, on April 8, the company had voluntarily offered to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation to patients who had undergone revision surgeries after a verification process, and the court had directed the Centre to provide a list of all claimants, to the company.
The company has clarified that its compensation should not be considered as an admission of liability or as a precedent.
The court recorded the company’s statement, adding that if the affected patients fail to succeed in their claims before any fora, the company would not be entitled to seek aany refund of its Rs 25 lakh compensation paid to each affected patient.
In case patients are compensated higher than Rs 25 lakh, the company would pay only the balance amount, the court stated.
Meanwhile, the case has been listed for final hearing on August 8.


