Can a Doctor Sue a Patient for Defamation in India? (And for a Bad Review?)

The short answer: yes for a false fact, no for a genuine patient's opinion

No, a doctor cannot successfully sue a genuine patient for their opinion of the care received. "Rude", "rushed", "did not listen" and "worst doctor I have seen" are views on a service. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects that speech, and Article 19(2) permits restrictions for defamation, which reach false imputations, not criticism.

The Madras High Court drew the line in V.P. Sarathi v. S. Kiruthigha, refusing to let a lawyer prosecute a client for calling him the "worst lawyer" in a Google review. This guide applies that line to doctors.

The ruling every doctor should read: V.P. Sarathi v. S. Kiruthigha

A client's Google review described her lawyer as "very disrespectful" and the "worst lawyer". He filed a criminal complaint of defamation; the magistrate dismissed it, and Justice V. Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court upheld the dismissal in revision (Crl.R.C. 445/2023, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 263).

As reported, the court observed that the internet is a free platform and an important means of expression, that posting false statements or derogatory remarks would amount to defamation, but that expressing views on services received does not defame the service provider.

Nothing in that turns on the profession. A consultation is a service received, and "the worst doctor" or "a waste of money" sits where the lawyer's review sat. A review saying the doctor misdiagnosed the reviewer on a date they were never seen, or prescribed a drug that was never prescribed, is a false statement, the side the court said would amount to defamation.

Two limits apply. It is a High Court decision on a criminal complaint, binding on the courts below it and persuasive elsewhere, not a Supreme Court rule. And it protects views, not invented facts. Its use for a doctor is practical: it tells you, before any notice is drafted, which side of the line a review is on.

What makes a review defamatory: fact versus opinion

Section 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (formerly sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) defines defamation as publishing an imputation about a person intending to harm their reputation, or knowing or having reason to believe it will. Explanation 4 counts an imputation that lowers a person in respect of their calling, which is why a false claim of clinical misconduct weighs heavily: it goes to professional standing.

The working test is whether the review asserts something checkable that is false. An opinion is neither true nor false; a fact is one or the other. The table sorts the patterns doctors see most often.

A review from someone who was never a patient asserts, by its form, that a consultation took place; if the records show no such visit, that is a false fact and a breach of the platforms' own rules. A review from a competing practice or a former employee is false if it describes treatment that did not happen, and Google treats such reviews as a conflict of interest. A review attributing another doctor's treatment to you is false as to you.

A complaint to a Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, or to a State Medical Council, is not a review. Exception 8 to section 356 protects an accusation made in good faith to anyone with lawful authority over its subject, and the answer to it is a defence in that forum.

The hardest reviews link an outcome to the doctor: "my father died because the doctor missed the signs". If the consultation and the death happened, that is an honest conclusion from real events, close to Exceptions 9 and 10, which cover good-faith imputations to protect others' interests and good-faith cautions for the public good. Answer it; do not sue on it unless the events are invented.

The criminal route: a complaint under BNS section 356

Section 356(2) punishes defamation with simple imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, both, or community service. Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class, and section 222(1) of that Sanhita (formerly section 199 of the CrPC) lets a court take cognizance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. The police will not register an FIR over a defamatory review.

The route is a private complaint by the doctor, filed through advocates before the Magistrate with jurisdiction, with the review, proof of who posted it and evidence that it is false. It needs a named accused, so an anonymous account must first be identified. A review that comes with a demand for money to remove it is different: putting a person in fear of injury to reputation to obtain property is extortion under section 308, which is cognizable and goes to the police.

The defences are in the Exceptions. Exception 1 covers a true imputation only where publishing it is for the public good. Exceptions 9 and 10 cover good-faith imputations to protect others' interests and good-faith cautions, which a genuine patient warning others will argue, often rightly.

That is why threatening a genuine reviewer is the wrong move. The complaint is likely to fail on the Exceptions and on V.P. Sarathi, and it puts the treatment itself before a court. The threat can create its own exposure: threatening injury to reputation to make someone give up an act they are entitled to do, such as keeping a lawful review up, is criminal intimidation under section 351. A threat to publish what the patient said in the consulting room is the clearest example, and professional misconduct as well.

The civil route: an injunction and damages

Defamation is also a civil wrong. A doctor can sue for an injunction ordering the review removed and restraining republication, for damages, or for both, in the civil court with jurisdiction, which in High Courts with original civil jurisdiction, such as Delhi and Bombay, can be the High Court itself above its pecuniary limit. Joining the platform as a defendant makes the order bind it directly.

Interim relief is where the practical value lies. Courts are cautious about restraining speech before trial where the defendant pleads truth or honest comment, so an interim order is most realistic where falsity is on the documents: an appointment register with no such visit, a signed consent form, a billing record. Once a court orders removal, Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 requires the platform to act within three hours of the order.

Damages must be proved, the defendant is usually a private individual, and no figure or outcome can be promised, so judge a suit by whether it removes the statement. A civil claim generally runs one year from first publication; the guide to the legal notice for defamation sets out the time limits.

Anonymous reviewers, the platform and the route in order

Many reviews come from accounts with a first name or none, so the order of steps matters. First preserve the evidence: a screenshot with the URL, date and reviewer profile. Check appointment, billing and consent records internally; they are evidence for a platform or a court, never material for a public reply.

Then use the platform's own process. Practo says its feedback comes from verified patients, one per appointment, and that it declines feedback that is biased, paid or promotional; a doctor who believes a review breaches that writes to support@practo.com. Google lets a business flag a review under its content policies from the Business Profile, and has a separate legal removal request for content said to be unlawful. Google does not remove a review merely because the business disagrees with it.

A private notice does not bind the platform. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 reads the "actual knowledge" that ends safe harbour under section 79 of the IT Act as a court order or a government notification, so a letter, even an advocate's, is a request. The next step is the grievance officer: Rule 3(2)(a)(i) of the IT Rules 2021 requires resolution within seven days, and the 36-hour lane in its proviso does not cover defamation, which falls in the residual "violates any law" category it excludes. Appeals lie to the Grievance Appellate Committee at gac.gov.in.

Identifying an anonymous reviewer needs a court. In a civil suit the partner law firm can seek an order directing the platform to disclose the account's basic subscriber information; the Bombay High Court gave such a direction in an ad interim order of 5 August 2026 in Nitin Gadkari v. Meta Platforms. The details are only as good as what the account holder gave, but they give the notice and any complaint an addressee.

Doctor-specific risks: the regulator, the advertising rule and confidentiality

Doctors carry two professional rules a business owner does not. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 still govern, because the National Medical Commission's 2023 regulations were held in abeyance by a notification of 23 August 2023, and nothing lifting that had been found as of September 2026. Regulation 6.1.1 bars soliciting patients, directly or indirectly. Replying to a review, or asking a platform or court to remove a false one, invites no one and is not soliciting; the rule bites on campaigns to generate praise, which the guide to whether doctors can advertise in India covers.

The second rule is confidentiality, the one most often broken in the heat of a bad review. Regulation 2.2 says a patient's confidences should never be revealed unless the law requires it, and regulation 7.14 makes disclosing a patient's secrets misconduct, save in a court of law under the presiding judge's orders, where there is a serious and identified risk to a specific person or community, and for notifiable diseases. A public reply to a review is none of these.

So a doctor answering a review must not disclose the patient's medical information: not the diagnosis, the treatment, what the patient said or failed to do, or even that the reviewer was treated. A safe reply says the practice takes feedback seriously, cannot discuss any patient's care in public, and invites the reviewer to contact the clinic. Proof that no such visit exists goes to the platform; a real patient's records go to a court, when it directs production.

The regulator is not part of a defamation case. The Commission and the State Medical Councils decide complaints about a doctor's conduct; they do not adjudicate reviews. If a patient has complained to a Council as well, answer the complaint there and deal with the review separately.

Should you send a notice to a patient? When it backfires

A legal notice is the right step when the author is identified, the review states a false fact and the evidence shows it. The partner law firm's advocates draft and sign it, confine it to the false statements, and ask for removal and, where appropriate, a correction. It discloses nothing said in confidence and never asks for a better review in exchange.

Sent to a genuine patient over an opinion, a notice usually backfires. It is likely to fail on V.P. Sarathi and the Exceptions, so it cannot be followed through. The patient can post it, and a doctor trying to silence a patient is a bigger story than the review, which gains readers it would not have had. It can also prompt a complaint to a Consumer Commission or a State Medical Council, where the treatment is examined on the record.

For honest criticism, the better answer is the short public reply described above and a look at whether the criticism has a point. Where a review mixes opinion with an invented fact, target the invented fact alone and leave the opinion standing; that is both the lawful position and the one a court is likely to support.

What RepuLex does, and does not do

Whoever a doctor instructs, one test sorts the offers: anyone promising to delete any review regardless of what it says, or to answer bad reviews with new good ones, is offering something that breaks platform rules and, for the new reviews, the law on fake reviews.

RepuLex, an online reputation management agency, works on the false-fact side of the line: fabricated reviews, reviews by people who were never patients, and invented clinical allegations on Google, Practo and JustDial. It documents the content and lodges platform and grievance complaints; notices under an advocate's signature, disclosure applications and suits are the acts of its partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates. The work is paid, at ₹99,999 per link plus GST (₹2,49,999 for 3 links, ₹7,49,999 for 10), payable 100% in advance with a 100% refund for any URL not removed within the agreed timeline, including where a platform refuses. No outcome is promised, a non-disclosure agreement is signed before the case is discussed, and no client is ever named.

It does not write, buy, request or seed reviews, run rating campaigns, or act against a genuine patient's opinion of their care. Where a review is honest criticism, the advice is to answer it and leave it up.