Singapore Court Orders Patient to Pay S$12,500 for Defamatory TCM Reviews

A Singapore district court has ordered a patient to pay S$12,500 in damages to a traditional Chinese medicine physician for posting defamatory Google reviews. Cheryl Lim posted two reviews after experiencing arm weakness following acupuncture treatment at Kin Teck Tong TCM Clinic in November 2024. District Judge Sim Mei Ling ruled on August 4 that while Lim’s first review qualified as fair comment, her second review crossed into defamation by asserting a direct causal link between treatment and injury, motivated by malice after the clinic refused her refund request.

How the court split the two reviews

District Judge Sim Mei Ling found both reviews defamatory but applied different legal standards. The first review, where Lim questioned whether physician Pheabe Chau was qualified and urged readers to “think twice,” was ruled fair comment and therefore not actionable. The second review, posted after the clinic declined Lim’s refund request, stated that the clinic treatment caused her to lose arm strength. The judge determined this was a definitive factual claim, not opinion, because it asserted a direct causal link between the acupuncture and her injury.

Why the second review triggered malice findings

The judge found Lim’s motive in publishing the second review was retaliation against the clinic’s refusal to grant a refund. This malice strengthened the defamation case. The judge awarded Chau S$10,000 in general damages and S$2,500 in aggravated damages, totaling S$12,500. Lim had not sought to prove the truth of her statements in court, which would have been her only defense to the defamation claim.

What happened during the treatment and after

Lim visited the clinic on November 17, 2024, for neck and shoulder ache treatment. Chau performed acupuncture while another therapist administered cupping and tui na massage. Lim reported severe pain that night and arm weakness the following morning, preventing her from lifting her arm to brush her teeth. She called the clinic and later returned on November 19 for examination by two senior physicians. She was advised to seek hospital care if symptoms did not improve, and on November 20 she attended the National University Hospital Emergency Department, where she was diagnosed with neurapraxia of upper extremity and cervical radiculopathy.

Disputed accounts of the clinic’s response

Chau claimed she had asked Lim to return to the clinic without delay and offered a S$25 medicated dressing if soreness was the cause. Lim disputed this account, saying she was told other patients had experienced similar symptoms that improved after a few days. Lim also denied requesting free dressing, claiming she had only asked whether she would be charged. The conflicting narratives formed part of the judge’s reasoning that Lim had not proven the truth of her claims, which would have been necessary to defend against defamation.

Final Thoughts

The ruling sets a boundary for online reviews in Singapore: stating opinions about qualifications is protected, but asserting specific factual claims of injury causation can trigger defamation liability. Businesses and patients should note that review platforms do not shield authors from legal accountability when posts cross from opinion into unproven factual assertions.

FAQs

Disclaimer:

The content shared by Meyka AI PTY LTD is solely for research and informational purposes.  Meyka is not a financial advisory service, and the information provided should not be considered investment or trading advice.