TCM clinic customer ordered to pay $12.5k in damages over defamatory Google reviews
Selina Lum
The Straits Times
Aug 5, 2026
A woman who posted negative reviews on the Google page of a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinic must pay $12,500 in damages for defaming the physician who treated her.
The customer, Cheryl Lim, had experienced weakness in her arm after she underwent acupuncture treatment at the Kin Teck Tong TCM Clinic at Plaza Singapura.
In the first review she posted, she cautioned readers to “think twice” and questioned if the physician, Pheabe Chau, was qualified.
After the clinic declined her request for a refund, Lim updated her review, this time stating that going to the clinic for treatment caused her to lose her arm strength.
In a written judgment on Aug 4, District Judge Sim Mei Ling said both reviews were defamatory.
The judge rejected Lim’s argument that they were justified, saying she had not sought to prove the truth of her statements.
However, the judge concluded the first review expressed an honest opinion and amounted to fair comment, which is a defence to a defamation claim.
But the second review was a definitive statement of fact.
This was because Lim asserted a causative link between the acupuncture treatment and her loss of arm strength, said the judge.
“The defence of fair comment has not been made out on the second Google review,” she said.
The judge also found the second review was motivated by malice.
She said Lim’s motive in publishing the second review was, more likely than not, to retaliate against the clinic’s refusal to give her a refund.
The judge awarded Chau $10,000 in general damages and $2,500 in aggravated damages.
Neck, shoulder aches
Lim had visited the clinic on Nov 17, 2024, to seek treatment for neck and shoulder aches.
Chau administered acupuncture on her, while another therapist performed cupping and “tui na” massage.
According to Lim, she felt severe pain in her neck and shoulders late that night. The next morning, she could not lift her arm to brush her teeth. She said she called the clinic but she felt reassured after Chau told her the pain would improve in a few days.
On Nov 19, 2024, the clinic’s manager called Lim to ask about her condition.
On the same day, Lim returned to the clinic and was examined by two senior physicians. According to her, one of them said he was not sure why Chau had administered acupuncture under her arm.
On Nov 20, 2024, she went to the accident and emergency department at National University Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a mild form of nerve injury and a pinched nerve.
In a further phone call with the TCM clinic manager, Lim asked the clinic to refund the costs of her treatment and to cover her A&E expenses.
On Nov 21, 2024, Lim posted a review on Google detailing her experience. She named Chau in the review, stating that “maybe” she was not qualified.
Five days later, Lim went to the clinic to seek a refund.
According to Chau, Lim threatened to post negative reviews until she was compensated. But Lim denied she had done so.
On Dec 2 that year, the clinic posted a comment on the review, stating “there might have been discrepancies between the treatments rendered and what was being mentioned in the review”.
No refund
The next day, the clinic manager told Lim the clinic would not refund her for the TCM treatment or cover her A&E expenses.
Later that month, on Dec 10, Lim posted the second review on the clinic’s Google page.
She wrote: “Going here for TCM caused me to lose my arm strength & have to pay for A&E & Ortho!!”
She also stated: “How can this be such a coincidence if not for the acupuncture poking wrongly?”
The reviews were accessible until Dec 17, 2024, and were purportedly deleted by Google for policy violations.
After an exchange of legal letters where Lim refused to apologise or compensate Chau, the physician filed the defamation suit on June 2, 2025.
The judge said Chau was defamed because she was clearly identified in the reviews, which contained statements that tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
The first review called into question her qualifications to administer acupuncture treatment, while the second review asserted she was incompetent, ignorant or negligent in performing acupuncture, and injured Lim as a result.
Explore more on these topics
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
