Medical professionals occupy a position of public trust, and online reviews have an outsized effect on patient acquisition. Studies show that 77% of patients consult online reviews before choosing a doctor. A coordinated false-review campaign by a disgruntled patient or a competitor can devastate a practice within weeks.
Why Doctors Are Especially Vulnerable
Unlike businesses where price or convenience drives decisions, patients trust their health to a doctor — making reputation damage both more acute and more difficult to recover from without legal intervention.
The Medical Council of India Ethics Angle
Reviewing a doctor is not per se protected speech. Where a review makes false clinical claims — alleging misdiagnosis, improper treatment, or fraudulent billing without factual basis — it crosses from opinion into potentially actionable defamation.
The MCI (now NMC) ethical guidelines also contemplate that doctors are not to be subjected to harassment. While this does not create a standalone legal cause of action, it supports arguments in court about the harm to a regulated professional's standing.
Grievance Filings with Google and Practo
Google Maps reviews of medical clinics can be removed through the Google Business Profile reporting mechanism when they violate Google's policies — specifically the prohibition on fake reviews and the requirement that reviewers have a genuine experience with the business.
Practo, Lybrate, and similar platforms have their own Grievance Officer mechanisms under the IT Rules 2021. A formal written complaint (not a click-report) is more effective. Legal notices to the Grievance Officer significantly accelerate the process.
Criminal and Civil Remedies
Where the false review makes a specific false clinical allegation, a complaint under Section 499/500 IPC can be filed directly before the Magistrate. Courts in Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalore have taken cognisance of such complaints against reviewers who could be identified from their Google account details.
Civil suits seeking injunctions and damages offer the additional advantage of John Doe orders where the reviewer is anonymous, compelling Google to disclose the account details to the court.
RepuLex Editorial
RepuLex's editorial team comprises senior advocates, legal researchers, and ORM strategists with over a decade of combined experience in online reputation law in India.