Dettol vs. Dermatologist: HC Orders Influencer to Delete Disparaging Claims

The case stems from a defamation suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited—the manufacturer of Dettol—against Marwah, Shamani, and influencer Ritik Chaturvedi.

Allegations and Legal Action by Reckitt Benckiser

Reckitt Benckiser approached the Delhi High Court alleging that the trio made “false, misleading, disparaging and defamatory” remarks about Dettol antiseptic liquid during a podcast episode hosted by Shamani and on Instagram reels shared on April 4 and reposted by Chaturvedi.

According to the suit, Dr Marwah allegedly stated that Dettol is a floor-cleaning agent unfit for human skin use. The podcast, titled “Skin Mistakes You Didn’t Know! Tanning & Sunburn EXPOSED” was uploaded on 1 April 2025 on the “FiguringOut.Co” YouTube channel hosted by Shamani. The accompanying Instagram reel was titled “Never Use Dettol on Your Skin.”

Also Read: Reckitt Expands Dettol Diarrhoea Net Zero To Cover 25 UP Districts

In its legal filing, Reckitt emphasized that Dettol has been “marketed and licensed in India as an antiseptic liquid since 1936” and qualifies as a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. “To call Dettol a disinfectant only fit for mopping floors is blatantly false and slanderous,” said senior counsel Chander M. Lall, appearing for Reckitt Benckiser, as quoted in Live Mint.

Reckitt asserted that Dr Marwah, being a dermatologist, “ought to know the essential difference between an antiseptic liquid and a disinfectant.” The company stated: “While an antiseptic liquid can be used as a disinfectant, a disinfectant cannot be used on human skin.”

As per a recent media report in the Financial Express, it also challenged Marwah’s claim that Dettol “burns the wound or skin and delays healing,” arguing that such allegations are not only factually incorrect but “promote an inaccurate narrative and potentially benefit competing products."

Settlement and Court Orders

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Saurabh Banerjee took note of a settlement agreement reached between the parties. Shamani’s counsel informed the court that the impugned Dettol-related clip, lasting approximately 90 seconds in the hour-long podcast, would be edited out. “I am saying it's a one-hour video. One and half minutes of clip with reference to Dettol. To put a quietus to it, we will edit that and remove Dettol part,” his counsel stated, reports Live Law.

Justice Banerjee, however, suggested that the more practical approach would be to take down the entire video and re-upload a revised version. The counsel responded that the client’s instructions were limited to editing the objectionable portion.

In a post-lunch session, the parties confirmed that a written settlement had been drafted. The Court then ordered that the YouTube video be edited within 24 hours and barred Shamani from re-uploading the original version. Dr Marwah and Chaturvedi were also directed to comply with the settlement terms. The Court recorded, “In view of the settlement, the Court directed that the impugned video be edited within 24 hours of the order. It further restrained Shamani from reuploading the impugned content.”

The court also acknowledged that Dr Marwah and Chaturvedi had already removed the reel from their respective Instagram handles.

Impact and Industry Implications

The case highlights the growing intersection between healthcare communications, social media influence, and legal accountability in India’s digital economy. Reckitt, citing the widespread reach of the content—over 2.3 lakh views on YouTube and 2.4 million views on Instagram—argued that even temporary exposure to such material causes “irreparable damage.”

The Financial Express also noted that Reckitt alleged the social media activity was “accentuated by malice for personal monetary gain and possibly released at the instance of a business competitor.”

In defending Dettol’s classification as an antiseptic suitable for skin application, Reckitt cited the Indian Pharmacopoeia definition of an antiseptic as “an agent that inhibits or destroys microorganisms on living tissue, including skin, oral cavities, and open wounds.”

The court, however, also observed during hearings that Marwah’s comments could be viewed as a professional opinion. “This appears to be an interpretation by a qualified expert,” Justice Banerjee noted.

Final Resolution

Reckitt has agreed to withdraw the suit upon compliance with the settlement. The court's order serves as a cautionary precedent for health professionals and influencers alike in making public claims that can affect public health perceptions and commercial reputations.