Kerala HC stays summons against ‘LiverDoc’ in defamation case over Ayurveda remarks
The Kerala High Court has stayed summons issued to Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips in a defamation case filed by an Ayurvedic manufacturer concerning his comments on liver damage from Ayurvedic medicines.
The Kerala High Court has stayed summons issued to Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips in a defamation case filed by an Ayurvedic manufacturer concerning his comments on liver damage from Ayurvedic medicines.
The Kerala High Court has stayed summons issued to Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips in a defamation case filed by an Ayurvedic manufacturer concerning his comments on liver damage from Ayurvedic medicines.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed the summons issued to hepatologist Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as ‘The LiverDoc’ on social media, in a criminal defamation case filed against him by an Ayurvedic manufacturer over his comments that Ayurvedic herbal medicines can cause liver damage.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, while issuing notice on the doctor’s petition seeking quashing of the proceedings, ordered that the summons be deferred till May 22.
The case arises from a private complaint filed before the Thrissur Magistrate by SN Oushadashala Pvt Ltd, which alleged that the doctor’s social media statements regarding a case of herb-induced liver injury caused reputational harm to the company.
The doctor had stated that a patient of his suffered liver damage after consuming the traditional Ayurvedic drug ‘Kashayam’.
Seeking quashing of the defamation complaint, the doctor, in his petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, contended that even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC are not made out.
He argued that the statements in question amount to criticism of a product and its alleged effects, which, in law, does not constitute defamation.
The petitioner further submitted that the social media post was based on actual clinical findings supported by medical records and scientific analysis, and was made in good faith to raise awareness on a matter of public health. On this basis, he claimed protection under the statutory exceptions to defamation under Section 499 IPC.
It was also contended that the Magistrate misappreciated the law and facts, including by evaluating scientific methodology at the stage of cognisance. The petitioner argued that continuing criminal proceedings against a medical professional acting in discharge of his duty, without malice, amounts to an abuse of the process of court and could have a chilling effect on scientific discourse and free speech.
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.
(With LiveLaw inputs)