TCM physician wins S$12,500 in damages from patient who defamed her in Google review

She was diagnosed with neurapraxia of upper extremity – a mild, temporary nerve injury in her arm – and cervical radiculopathy, a pinched nerve.

Ms Chau said no specific finding linked her acupuncture treatment to Ms Lim’s pain. Ms Lim, however, said her doctor had told her it was possible the acupuncture had caused the condition.

Ms Lim then spoke to the clinic’s manager by phone on Nov 20, 2024. The manager claimed Ms Lim asked for a refund for her TCM treatment as well as reimbursement for her hospital expenses and the costs of future orthopaedic consultations and treatments.

The manager said she asked Ms Lim to provide a medical report and receipts, but Ms Lim did not do so. Ms Lim, however, said she had only asked whether it was possible to obtain a refund for the TCM treatment and hospital expenses and that she was not asked to provide any medical reports or receipts.

THE GOOGLE REVIEWS

On Nov 21, 2024, Ms Lim posted a Google review of the clinic. In the review, she asked others to “be careful” of getting acupuncture treatment at the clinic, adding that “maybe just the specific physician or therapist are not qualified”.

She said she had undergone acupuncture before without any problems, but lost strength in her arm after her recent treatment at the clinic.

She named Ms Chau as the physician who performed the acupuncture and alleged that a senior physician had told her it was the first time he had seen such an incident in decades of practice and that he was unsure why Ms Chau had “poked a certain area”.

A few days later, Ms Lim returned to the clinic. Ms Chau claimed Ms Lim asked for a refund and compensation without providing any medical reports or receipts.

Ms Chau also alleged that Ms Lim threatened to continue posting negative reviews on Google until she was compensated. Ms Lim denies this.

The clinic later commented on the review, saying that “there might have been discrepancies between the treatments rendered and what was being mentioned in the review”.

They also told Ms Lim that they would not refund her TCM or hospital expenses. Ms Lim then allegedly threatened to make a police report and post more negative Google reviews.

On Dec 10, 2024, Ms Lim posted more paragraphs on the clinic’s Google page, referred to as the second review.

She again named Ms Chau and added Miao Miao this time, warning others to “be careful” and to “think twice”. She added that she “can’t even lift up my child or even hook my bra”. She also wrote that the clinic was “only a money-making business” and “not at all about wellness of client”.

The reviews were accessible until mid-December 2024 when Google took them down for violating its policies.

Ms Chau’s lawyers issued a letter of demand to Ms Lim on Dec 20, 2024, and Ms Lim’s lawyers replied a month later saying she agreed to retract the reviews but refused to provide an apology or compensation.

Ms Chau, who was represented by Mr Kang Kim Yang from Templars Law, then commenced defamation proceedings seeking damages, aggravated damages and an injunction to restrain Ms Lim from publishing similar defamatory words.

AT TRIAL

At trial, Ms Lim was represented by Mr Tay Jing En and Mr Joshua Ho. They asserted that the Google reviews did not refer to Ms Chau and were not defamatory.

They also relied on the defences of justification – that the statements made were true – and fair comment – a personal, honest opinion on matters of public interest.

District Judge Sim Mei Ling found that both reviews were capable of being defamatory, as the first called into question Ms Chau’s qualifications to administer acupuncture treatment, and the second asserted that she was incompetent, ignorant or negligent in performing acupuncture such that it injured Ms Lim.

However, Judge Sim found that Ms Lim had satisfied the elements of the defence of fair comment for the first Google review.

This was because the review was an opinion Ms Lim honestly held on a matter of public interest, based on facts she knew at that time. As a result, no damages were ordered.

However, Ms Lim failed in both the justification and fair comment defences for the second review.

She was deemed as having presented serious allegations as fact, saying Ms Chau had wrongly inserted the needle and caused the injury.

The judge granted aggravated damages for the defamation in the second Google review, finding that the motive in publishing it was likely retaliation against the refusal for a refund.

The damages will include interest at 5.33 per cent from the date of judgment to the date of payment.

Both sides are to submit submissions on costs.