Back
Bars Fake Videos Using Dr Devi Shetty’s Persona, Cites Public Health Risk
In a significant ruling that underscores the intersection of , , and public health, the has permanently restrained social media pages and YouTube channels from using the identity of renowned cardiac surgeon Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty to promote false medical claims. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that such content poses a threat not only to Dr. Shetty’s reputation but also to members of the public who may act on the fabricated health advice.
The court also barred the unauthorized use of registered trademarks belonging to , the hospital chain founded by Dr. Shetty. The suit, filed by Dr. Shetty and the company, targeted multiple Facebook pages and YouTube channels that had deployed and voice-overs to create convincing but fraudulent videos.
The Misuse of a Surgeon’s Identity
The offending content was diverse in its deception. One Facebook page posted a video styled as a news telecast, showing Dr. Shetty purportedly promoting a drug to cure Type II diabetes. Another claimed he had formulated a blood pressure medication. A third video, bearing the hospital’s registered "N-1" device mark on screen, presented him as endorsing an alternative hypertension treatment.
Five YouTube channels uploaded videos in Bengali and Hindi, offering health advice attributed to Dr. Shetty. Some of these videos were assembled by splicing clips from his earlier public interviews and overlaying a new voice-over. One channel used the "N-1" mark, while another deployed "Narayana Health" as a hashtag, further diluting the hospital’s brand.
The plaintiffs argued that the content infringed Dr. Shetty’s personality and as well as the hospital’s trademarks. More critically, they emphasized that the videos endangered public health by promoting unverified medicines in the name of a trusted cardiac surgeon. An email dated , submitted to the court, indicated that at least one member of the public had acted on the information, underscoring the real-world danger.
Court’s Reasoning: Beyond Commercial Harm
When the suit came up for final disposal, the court recorded that the issued on —including a and directions to and to disclose account holder details—had been complied with. Relying on the set in , Justice Kaurav reiterated that the court has consistently protected the personality and of individuals, particularly against misuse through artificial intelligence and .
However, the judge pointed to a distinguishing feature of this case. “More significantly, the misuse in the present case is not confined to the of the persona of a individual. The impugned content attributes to a cardiac surgeon claims of cures for diabetes, hypertension and other cardiac ailments which he never made. The resultant harm, therefore, does not stop at the reputation of plaintiff no.1, but extends to members of the public who may act upon such content, as is evident from the email dated 08.11.2024 placed on record.”
This observation broadens the scope of protection beyond mere economic exploitation, placing a premium on . The court accepted that the potential for harm to unsuspecting patients justified a , even in the absence of direct evidence of widespread injury.
Legal Parameters: Personality and
The ’s decision builds upon a growing body of jurisprudence that recognizes as a form of . In the digital age, where can replicate a person’s likeness with ease, the court’s reasoning provides a template for other celebrities and public figures seeking redress.
The court declined to declare the hospital’s marks as “ ” under , noting that the relevant factors had not been examined in this proceeding. That prayer was left open for future litigation. Nevertheless, the injunction against the misuse of the "N-1" and "Narayana Health" marks remains in full force.
The court also granted the plaintiffs a continuing right to seek takedowns of similar content in the future. “Bearing in mind that content of this nature can be generated and re-uploaded with little effort and under fresh identities, there does not seem to be any difficulty in accepting the said prayer,” the judgment stated, following the same liberty granted in the Rajat Sharma case.
Compliance and
The of , which restrained the creators from misusing Dr. Shetty’s persona or the hospital’s marks, was made absolute. and had already complied with the direction to take down the impugned content and provide account holder details. The court’s decree now permanently bars the defendants—including any future unnamed entities—from engaging in similar conduct.
For Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty and , the outcome provides both vindication and a practical tool to combat ongoing abuse. The continuing right to request takedowns means the plaintiffs can act swiftly against re-uploads, a common tactic in deepfake-driven campaigns.
Implications for Digital Content and Public Health
This judgment carries weight beyond the immediate parties. For legal practitioners, it reaffirms that are not merely a celebrity privilege but a shield against harm to the public. The emphasis on the public health dimension signals that courts will treat medical misinformation with particular seriousness, especially when it exploits a trusted expert’s identity.
Platforms like Facebook and YouTube are now on notice: they must respond promptly to takedown requests involving that risk public health. The disclosure of account holder details also aids in tracing the originators, potentially deterring future misuse.
From a policy perspective, the ruling aligns with global efforts to curb online health misinformation. The ’s willingness to extend protection beyond commercial interests and into the realm of personal safety sets a benchmark for similar cases. It also highlights the urgent need for platforms to implement more robust verification mechanisms for content involving medical professionals.
Conclusion
The ’s against the misuse of Dr. Devi Shetty’s persona marks a pivotal moment in the protection of personality and in India. By recognizing that fake medical videos endanger public health, the court has expanded the traditional boundaries of these rights. The decision serves as a powerful for other public figures and medical professionals whose identities may be weaponized online. As deepfake technology continues to evolve, this ruling offers a clear legal pathway to counter the spread of harmful and deceptive content.
