Deepfake and AI-Generated Medical Misinformation: Protecting a Doctor’s Identity Online
Over the past two years, Indian courts have dealt with a specific and troubling pattern: AI-generated videos of well-known doctors appearing to endorse unproven cures, dietary supplements, or fake treatments, built entirely from cloned voices and manipulated footage the doctor never recorded. Cardiologist Dr Naresh Trehan and cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Prasad Shetty are among the doctors who have had to seek court intervention after their likeness was used this way. Every practising doctor with any public profile is now a plausible target.
Why Doctors Are a Particular Target
A recognisable doctor’s face and voice carry inherent credibility, which is exactly what makes them valuable to scammers pushing fake cures or fraudulent health products. A deepfake video showing a well-known physician recommending a supplement or a miracle treatment can drive real purchasing decisions from patients who have no easy way to tell the video is fabricated.
Beyond the direct financial fraud, there is a public health dimension: patients who trust a fabricated endorsement may delay legitimate treatment or stop prescribed medication in favour of a fake cure, and the reputational damage to the doctor whose identity was misused can affect their practice long after the fake video is taken down.
The Legal Grounds Doctors Can Rely On
Unauthorised use of a doctor’s face, voice, or name to promote a product or claim engages several overlapping legal protections in India: personality and privacy rights, the tort of passing off or false endorsement, and defamation where the fabricated content damages professional reputation. Delhi High Court has increasingly recognised these claims for public figures, including doctors, through interim injunctions ordering platforms to take down the offending content and disable access to specific URLs.
In one such case, the Delhi High Court granted ex parte relief to a cardiac surgeon and the hospital group he founded, restraining the misuse of his name, image, and likeness through any current or future AI or deepfake technology, and directing intermediary platforms to disable the listed URLs. Courts have also issued broader ‘dynamic-plus’ style injunctions for public figures, which allow future infringing URLs discovered after the original order to be taken down without a fresh court filing each time.
What the 2025-26 IT Rules Amendment Adds
In October 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology amended the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines to formally define and regulate synthetically generated information, meaning any audio, video, or image created or altered algorithmically to appear authentic. The amendment came into force in mid-November 2025 and tightens due diligence obligations on social media intermediaries handling this kind of content.
A further amendment proposed in February 2026 introduced a much shorter takedown window, requiring platforms to act within three hours of a valid complaint, along with mandatory labelling requirements for AI-generated content. Together, these changes give doctors a faster statutory route to get fabricated content removed, in addition to the existing court injunction route, which can take longer even when relief is eventually granted.
Practical Steps for Doctors and Clinics
Doctors who discover a deepfake video or fabricated endorsement using their name should preserve evidence immediately, including screenshots, video URLs, and account details of the poster, before filing a takedown request with the platform under the amended IT Rules. Where the content involves a specific fraudulent product or financial scam, filing a police complaint alongside the platform takedown strengthens the record if the matter later needs court intervention.
For doctors with an active public or social media presence, periodically searching their own name alongside terms such as ‘endorsement’ or ‘cure’ can help catch fabricated content early, before it accumulates views and shares. Clinics building a marketing or online reputation strategy should also build in a monitoring routine, since a viral deepfake can undo years of legitimate reputation-building within days if it goes unaddressed.
Conclusion
Deepfake misuse of a doctor’s identity is no longer a hypothetical risk in India; it has already produced court precedent and a tightened statutory takedown regime. Doctors are better protected the moment they know the legal tools available to them, and clinics that build monitoring into their existing online reputation practices are better placed to respond quickly if it happens.
Researched Resources
1. Deepfake ‘doctors’: AI and the spread of medical misinformation
2. The Rising Tide Of Deepfakes In India
3. India Tightens Rules on Deepfakes and AI-Generated Content
4. IT Rules Amendment 2026: Deepfake Regulation Explained
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and educational purposes and reflects India’s deepfake and IT Rules regulatory framework as understood at the time of writing; enforcement mechanisms and takedown timelines continue to evolve. It is not legal advice, and doctors facing a specific incident should consult a qualified lawyer or their hospital’s legal team promptly.
Vivek Chaudhary is a Technical Content Developer specializing in healthcare, health technology, and digital healthcare business solutions. He creates research-driven, SEO-focused content for doctors, clinics, hospitals, healthcare professionals, and patients, covering topics such as healthcare technology, patient engagement, clinic management, digital communication, and online visibility.
