Herbal medicine defamation case: Kerala HC stays summons against The Liver Doc
Kerala HC Grants Interim Relief to Hepatologist in Defamation Proceedings
Kochi: After a petition by a hepatologist known on social media as “The LiverDoc,” the Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed the summons issued to him in a criminal defamation case filed by an Ayurvedic manufacturer over his remarks on herbal medicines and liver health.
The interim order was issued by Justice Jobin Sebastian, who also directed that the summons in the case be deferred until May 22.
Also Read:Liver Doc summoned in criminal defamation case over herbal medicine row
The case was filed by SN Oushadashala Pvt Ltd, which alleged that the doctor's social media statements regarding herb-induced liver injury reportedly damaged the company's reputation. The complaint specifically referred to his observations linking a patient’s liver damage to the use of an Ayurvedic preparation.
Medical Dialogues had previously reported that Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, a well-known Kerala-based hepatologist popularly known as "The Liver Doc," has been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Thrissur in a criminal defamation case. Sharing the summons notice on a popular social media platform 'X', Dr Philips stated that the case was filed by an Ayurveda manufacturer. According to him, the complaint was filed after he publicly spoke about the dangers of unregulated herbal and Ayurvedic medicines, which he said can cause liver damage.
Seeking the quashing of the defamation complaint, the doctor, in his petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, contended that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC are not satisfied. It is argued that the statements in question amount only to criticism of a product and its alleged effects, which, in law, does not constitute defamation, reports Live Law.
It was further contended that the statements were based on clinical findings supported by medical records and scientific analysis. It was made in good faith in the interest of public health awareness. On this basis, he sought protection under the statutory exceptions to defamation under Section 499 IPC.
The doctor’s plea also argues that the Magistrate’s court erred in law by examining scientific methodology at the stage of cognizance. It further states that continuing criminal proceedings against a medical professional acting in the course of his duties, without malice, amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.
The petition warns that such proceedings could have a chilling effect on scientific discourse, medical critique, and free speech, particularly in matters involving public health.
Advocates Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Sreelakshmi Sabu, Dhanya Sunny, Archana N. J., Ann Jomiya Antony, and Anjali C. S. appeared for the petitioner, reports the Live Law.
