15 October,2026 07:44 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
The guidelines aim to ensure patients choose their doctors and hospitals on facts, not on promises of miracles. Representation Pic/AI-generated image
A week after the National Medical Commission (NMC) barred "No. 1 specialist" posts, before-and-after photos, and AI-made testimonials, medical experts are weighing in on what the new advertising code means for patients and for the profession. Many welcome the move. Some are still reading the fine print.
The guidelines, in force since October 6, follow Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1160/2023 in the Supreme Court and the 2002 Indian Medical Council ethics regulations. They aim to make sure patients choose their doctors and hospitals on facts, not on promises of miracles.
For Dr Santosh Kadam, member of the Maharashtra State Medical Council, Mumbai, and past president of the Indian Medical Association, Maharashtra, the biggest change is who is covered.
Now they have brought corporate hospitals also under the gambit, and this is a level playing field for doctors, small nursing homes and corporate hospitals, he said, noting that the rules apply across print, broadcast, websites, social media, influencers, online platforms and AI-generated or AI-assisted content, almost covering every sort of advertisement.
Hospitals, he pointed out, can still share objective, verifiable information:
. Location and contact details.
. Departments and facilities.
. Emergency services and accreditation.
. Lawful fees.
He added that public-health education and research-based communication remain permitted, but must stay non-promotional. Doctors may also make limited announcements, such as starting or changing practice, a change of address, temporary absence, resumption of practice or consultation charges.
Dr Kadam said the rules draw a clear line on patient material. Patient information and images cannot be used for advertising, and consent does not legalise otherwise prohibited promotion. The ban covers referral fees, discounts meant to drive unnecessary care, paid rankings, fake reviews, testimonials, before-and-after images, celebrity promotion and manipulation of online engagement or search visibility.
Dr Indrajit Khandekar, professor of forensic medicine at MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha, said the test is the patient's interest. "Patients need reliable information, not promises of miracles," he said.
He stressed that the guidelines allow factual communication while restricting misleading cure claims, promotional testimonials, and patient solicitation. Doctors, he said, must protect patient privacy and remain responsible for authorised publicity, even when an agency or influencer publishes it. "The real test is whether communication helps patients make informed choices or exploits their vulnerability to generate more business."
Dr Khandekar has already initiated a training programme for doctors through various private practitioner associations and forums to familiarise them with the new guidelines and ensure compliance.
Dr Aruna Vanikar, immediate past president of the Under-Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB), NMC, said, "I am yet to go through the guidelines, but I am of the view that there should be some ethics in medical practice," she said.
Patients should look forâ¦
Credentials: Doctors' online posts must show name, qualifications, registration status and registration number.
Superlatives: "Best" or "leading" claims must be verifiable, with any award's methodology, date and awarding body disclosed.
Reviews: Doctors cannot seek or share patient testimonials, and fake or paid reviews are barred.
Before-and-after pictures: Banned in promotion even with consent; allowed only for scientific or educational use with anonymised consent.
Discounts: Coupons, cashbacks and free procedures are barred if they could prompt unnecessary treatment.
AI content: Must carry a source mark, and AI cannot create a patient's image, voice, or outcome.
Experts say several questions remain open:
Enforcement: Action "may be contemplated" by State Medical Councils, and the penalty amount is not specified.
Existing posts: No word on whether current content must be removed or if there is a grace period.
Hospitals: They fall under Clinical Establishments or state laws, not the doctors' penalty ladder, which runs from warning and ethics training to removal from the register for one to three years.
Complaints: No patient complaint channel is set out, though action rests with State Medical Councils.
Platforms and agencies: Healthcare platforms must avoid paid ranking of doctors, but monitoring is unclear. Doctors remain responsible for content they authorised or knowingly permitted.
State Medical Councils may impose graded action on doctors -- a warning and ethics training for a first violation, censure and a fine for a second, and three to six months' suspension for a third. Serious violations, such as misleading cure claims or mass digital solicitation, can mean six to twelve months' suspension; repeat offences, removal from the register for one to three years.
Penalties require a show-cause notice and a reasoned order. Doctors can appeal to the NMC's Ethics and Medical Registration Board within 60 days.
Mohini Priya, advocate on record, Supreme Court, for petitioner Dr Aniruddha Malpani, who filed the 2023 PIL, said, "We welcome these guidelines. Individual doctors faced strict advertising limits while corporate hospitals marketed identical services without equivalent accountability. But the biggest limitation is enforceability. The NMC Act regulates practitioners, and guidelines cannot create powers the parent law does not confer. These standards must be built into the Clinical Establishments Act and state laws, or they remain advisory."
Dr Malpani said, "Unregulated advertising by commercial corporate hospitals has made life very difficult for patients because these hospitals can claim what they like, and the worst thing is they can get away with it. Even worse, it's created an uneven playing field: these corporate hospitals, which charge a lot of money, are free to advertise, whereas individual doctors (who are in private practice, who run small nursing homes or clinics, and who provide far better compassionate community-based healthcare) do not have that same opportunity. As a result, we're seeing healthcare becoming increasingly corporatised, impersonal, and uncaring. This is a step in the right direction, but there's clearly a lot more work which needs to be done."
[popcorn number="Oct 6" desc="Day guidelines came into force" class="Default"]
