India Beauty Clinic Rating Structural Verification Index — aesthetic medicine & plastic surgery
By procedure: Rhinoplasty Breast surgery Liposuction & body contouring Hair transplant Injectables Medical weight loss

How we measure

Version 1.0.0, updated 29 August 2026. Public name of the score: Structural Verification Index. Every number on this site can be recomputed from the published data and the rules on this page: the engine reads the same file this page is rendered from.

What we check — and what we do not

We check structural trust facts against official public registers: who the responsible physician is, what certification and licence the registers confirm, whether the facility and the legal entity can be traced, whether the clinic discloses its own identifiers, whether its advertising is honest, whether its language fronts agree, and whether patient documents are published.

We do not assess outcomes, skill or complications. A high score means the clinic is well verified, not that treatment there is right for you. This is not medical advice.

The unit

One record = one clinic in this country: brand + address + responsible physician. The named physician is the load-bearing field — every register check is by name. Procedure segment and city are facets, not units.

Inclusion policy

Four mechanical conditions. The first three decide whether a clinic is listed; the fourth whether it can be scored.

  1. Identifiable: a live public surface and a working in-country contact on the check date.
  2. Provides the service itself: not an aggregator, booking site, affiliate or tour packager.
  3. In scope: the intervention is performed by a physician — plastic or aesthetic surgery, hair transplant, physician-led injectables or device treatments, medical weight loss. Out: salons, barbers, nails/brows/lashes, spas, med-spas without a named physician.
  4. Names a responsible physician. Otherwise the record is published as verification unavailable: listed, not scored, no rank. Unknown is not fault — a missing name is a statement about coverage, not an accusation.

Country register map

The map for India was compiled 29 August 2026, before any clinic research. A class marked as absent makes its axis not applicable; a register that cannot be scripted leaves its axis cells as 'could not verify', without penalty. We never simulate a register.

Specialist board registerRegistered post-graduate qualification field on the SAME State Medical Council registers as medical_licence (DMC / MMC) — India has no separate national specialist-certifying board for plastic surgery or dermatology outside a doctor's PG degree (M.Ch, MD, DNB) or a recognised foreign board fellowship being recorded on their state medical-council registration. (open, machine-readable)
Same recipe and caveats as medical_licence (see that class's notes for the full DMC/MMC/NMC request details, the DMC captcha-bypass finding, and the NMC IMR limitations). Search the SAME response you already pulled for the licence axis — no extra request needed. DMC exposes qualifications as an HTML sub-table per matched record (examination / university / year columns); MMC exposes them as a JSON array 'qualificationDetails':[{examination,college,university,yearOfPassing}] on the per-doctor detail route (not on the summary /doctor/search list route — you must follow the doctor's 'id' to /doctor/search/<id> to see qualifications). Plastic-surgery-relevant examination strings actually observed or documented on these registers include 'M.Ch (Plastic Surgery)', 'MS/M.Ch General/Plastic Surgery', 'MD/DNB (Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy)', and recognised foreign fellowships such as 'Diplomate, American Board of Plastic Surgery' or 'FACS' — but the exact wording is whatever the state council's data-entry operator typed, so match loosely (case/spacing-insensitive substring on 'plastic', 'cosmet', 'derma', 'aesthet', 'M.Ch', 'DNB') rather than exact string.
Medical licence registerState Medical Council registers — the mandatory practising-licence record for a physician in India. Confirmed OPEN on Delhi Medical Council (DMC, plain HTML GET) and Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC, JSON REST API); the national NMC Indian Medical Register (IMR) is a supplementary cross-check for other states. (open, machine-readable)
DMC RECIPE: the public form at /home/search_ur_dr (First_Name/Mobile/Email) carries NO captcha field at all and its submit handler simply redirects the browser to GET /home/search_ur_dr_submit?First_Name=<value>&Mobile=&Email= — that target URL is directly GET-able with no session/cookie/referer needed, DataTables-rendered as plain HTML (registration no., registration type, registration/expiry dates, doctor name, correspondence address, and a 'Qualifications' sub-table of examination/university/year rows per record). Single tokens work best (e.g. First_Name=Ajaya, not 'Ajaya Kashyap' together — a two-word value returned zero rows in testing even though the doctor exists as 'Ajaya Kashyap'). The SEPARATE registration-number lookup at /home/regi_search DOES render an HTML captcha image (id=Captcha) and does a client-side ajax verification POST before redirecting — but that check only gates the redirect click; the destination URL /home/regi_search_submit?Regd_ID=<n>&Type=FRS|RRE is itself a plain unauthenticated GET with no token requirement, confirmed live (Regd_ID=24700&Type=RRE above). Type is 'FRS' (Fresh Registration) or 'RRE' (Re-Registration); try both if one 404s/empties. MMC RECIPE (reverse-engineered from the portal's Vite bundle, api base pinned as VITE_API_BASE_URL='https://api.maharashtramedicalcouncil.org.in/api/v1' in assets/index-BsAnhsBN.js): GET {base}/doctor/search?{field}={value}&page=<n>&size=<n> where field is 'name' or 'registrationNumber' (built by the app's own field-validator, minified var xB=["name","registrationNumber"]); response JSON {success,message,data:{total,doctors:[{id,mmcRegistrationNumber,registrationDate,registrationValidUpto,personalDetails:{fullName}}]}}; per-doctor detail (incl. qualificationDetails and a presigned S3 photoUrl) is GET {base}/doctor/search/<doctor id-uuid> (same '/doctor/search' base path, id appended) — response {success,message,data:{doctor:{...}},photoUrl}. No CORS block, no cookie, no captcha, no login; response carries a RateLimit header advertising 600 requests/15min per client. NMC IMR RECIPE (national, supplementary only): GET https://www.nmc.org.in/MCIRest/open/getPaginatedData?service=getPaginatedDoctor&name=<single surname>&draw=1&start=0&length=25 (or up to ~100) — a DataTables serverSide JSON endpoint, no captcha/login, verified live with real rows for name=Thomas (recordsFiltered 4922, oldest-first e.g. 'Thomas Risdale Charles Perriman', Tamil Nadu Medical Council, 1928) and name=Kashyap (recordsFiltered 855, e.g. 'Kashyap Harish Chandra', Tamil Nadu Medical Council, 1944); columns are [row#, year, registrationNo, smcName, name('Surname Givenname'), parentName, viewLink]. CAVEATS proven this pass: (a) results are ordered oldest-first by year, so a modern doctor is typically at a high 'start' offset in a common surname's result set, but any request with start beyond roughly a few hundred, OR any additional filter field combined with 'name' (smcId, year, registrationNo alone), OR any call to the sibling POST endpoint /MCIRest/open/getDataFromService?service=searchDoctor (used by the site's own registration-number search and its 'view details' modal) reliably HUNG and timed out (curl error 28, zero bytes) across many repeated attempts — so treat NMC IMR as usable ONLY for a single-surname GET at start=0 with length<=100, nothing else; (b) searching name=Ajaya alone returned 227 rows (full set fetched) and contained NO 'Kashyap' among them, i.e. Dr. Ajaya Kashyap's DMC-registered 2005 licence is not present/findable in this particular NMC dataset — a known real-world gap (many state-council registrations, especially from the 1980s-2000s, were never centrally uploaded to the NMC/MCI database), which is exactly why DMC/MMC must be the primary recipe and NMC only a cross-check. Karnataka Medical Council (kmc.karnataka.gov.in, karnatakamedicalcouncil.com) and Tamil Nadu Medical Council (tamilnadumedicalcouncil.org) exist but were not reachable/resolvable this pass (see status); their axis cells stay null until a future pass finds a working recipe.
Facility registerNABH — National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers, 'Find an Accredited Healthcare Organisation' directory (voluntary quality accreditation/certification/empanelment register covering hospitals, Small Healthcare Organisations, and some stand-alone facilities) (open, machine-readable)
Endpoint is WordPress admin-ajax.php with action=get_hospitals; form fields seen in the page source: q (free text: name/state/city/pincode/accreditation no.), lat/long (optional, for GPS-nearest sort), specialities[] (repeatable checkbox, e.g. value 'DER' = Dermatology — the specialty checklist covers ~35 categories but has no dedicated 'Cosmetic/Plastic Surgery' code as of this pass; 'Surgery' and 'Dermatology' are the closest), page (1-indexed). Response is JSON with a single 'html' field holding a ready-to-render fragment (parse with a regex/DOM parser for HCO Name / Address / Contact / Acc. No. / Accreditations columns) rather than structured JSON rows — plan the collector's scraper accordingly. No cookie, session, referer, or the page's own reCAPTCHA token were required in any of the three live tests, despite a Google reCAPTCHA v3 script (render=6Lcys70rAAAAAKLKT7XsynH9KjXJ23rigLL9ACl_) being loaded elsewhere on the page — it is not wired to this endpoint. Separately checked the national Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act portal, clinicalestablishments.mohfw.gov.in: its '/portal/cerrs/national-register' page is an aggregate dashboard (a Google Chart plus est_type radio + startdate/enddate date-pickers) that only returns COUNTS of provisional/permanent registrations by state and date range, not a per-facility name search; the actual facility-level search lives behind clinicalestablishments.gov.in/AuthenticatedPages/... which requires a logged-in State Nodal Officer account — so it cannot be used as an open recipe and NABH remains the sole open facility-level route found.
Company registerMinistry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) — 'View Company/LLP Master Data' on the MCA21 V3 portal (mca.gov.in): the official company/LLP register (CIN/LLPIN, incorporation date, status, registered office, directors) (form-based, not scriptable)
MCA's free company-search service is documented (via secondary/public sources, not confirmed directly by us because of the block below) to itself present a numeric/text captcha once loaded in a real browser — we could not verify that first-hand because Akamai's edge WAF in front of mca.gov.in/mca21.gov.in returns a blanket 403 'Access Denied' to every scripted request tried from this environment, regardless of exact path, HTTP method, TLS/plain-HTTP, or User-Agent string, so classify strictly by what was observed here: a real search interface exists (per public documentation and screenshots) but no scripted request from this environment ever returns rows, which is the definition of 'form'. Also checked data.gov.in (India's national open-government-data portal) for a republished bulk MCA company-master-data CSV/API — its /search page is itself a client-rendered app and a plain GET returned no matching dataset link within the research budget. Do NOT substitute a private mirror (zaubacorp.com, tofler.in, instafinancials.com, similar) as the cited legal_entity source — these are commercial re-packagers of the same MCA data, not the official government register, and the brief requires state bodies over such secondary sources.
Sanctions / discipline registerNMC — 'Black List of Doctors' (within the Indian Medical Register), listing physicians whose registration was removed/suspended, with suspension and restoration dates (form-based, not scriptable)
The front-end page (black-list-doctors, loaded via blackListDoct.js) offers a multiselect of State Medical Councils, a registration-number field, and suspended/restored date-range pickers, all wired to the POST endpoint above via jQuery $.ajax — there is no captcha widget on this particular tab. The SAME name-search GET recipe that works for medical_licence (getPaginatedData?service=getPaginatedDoctor) also has a per-doctor detail path (openDoctorDetailsnew(), calling service=getDoctorDetailsByIdImrExt) whose response includes a boolean 'removedStatus' field that would flag a blacklisted doctor inline — but that detail call is ALSO a POST to the same /MCIRest/open/getDataFromService backend and therefore hits the identical timeout, so it could not be exercised live either. None of the two real doctor records pulled this pass (Ajaya Kashyap via DMC, Mohan Thomas via MMC) showed any suspension/status flag in their state-council record, but absence there is not evidence of 'no sanction' since neither DMC's nor MMC's summary schema surfaces a dedicated status field for this — only NMC's blacklist path would, and it is unreachable. Treat this axis's cells as null pending a future pass that finds a working transport (e.g. a headless browser to complete whatever session/state the POST expects).
Foreign-patient registerno public register of this class in this country

The nine axes

Every axis is a fact or a quote from a public source, scored 1–5 against a fixed rubric. There are no editorial axes. Each cell carries its sources, its source class (official register / secondary) and its check date.

Fame, review volume, domain age and social-media following are scored nowhere.

M1 · Specialist certification of the responsible physician — weight 26

Whether the physician named as responsible for this clinic is found in the country's specialist board register with a current specialisation matching the advertised segment (plastic surgery or dermatology, by segment).

Register class: Specialist board register — Registered post-graduate qualification field on the SAME State Medical Council registers as medical_licence (DMC / MMC) — India has no separate national specialist-certifying board for plastic surgery or dermatology outside a doctor's PG degree (M.Ch, MD, DNB) or a recognised foreign board fellowship being recorded on their state medical-council registration..

ValueAnchor
5Found by name or number; specialty matches what is advertised; status current.
4Found; specialty adjacent to what is advertised (noted on the profile).
3Found in the register; the register does not disclose specialty.
2Only a secondary source (association, aggregator) supports the certification.
1Certification is claimed and found in no source.

M2 · Identifiability of the responsible physician — weight 16

Whether a patient can name the specific physician and their role before making contact, and whether that physician is tied to this location.

ValueAnchor
5Physician(s) named with role and tied to this address.
4Named; role unclear.
3A name appears in only one place on the site.
2Surname or initials without a full name.
1'Our team' only — this is the gate state 'verification unavailable'.

M3 · Basic medical licence — weight 8

Whether the responsible physician's registration is found in the country's medical licence register.

Register class: Medical licence register — State Medical Council registers — the mandatory practising-licence record for a physician in India. Confirmed OPEN on Delhi Medical Council (DMC, plain HTML GET) and Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC, JSON REST API); the national NMC Indian Medical Register (IMR) is a supplementary cross-check for other states..

ValueAnchor
5Matched by licence number.
4Matched by name.
3Register not machine-accessible; the clinic publishes the number.
2Licence claimed without a number.
1Public data contradicts the claim.

M4 · Facility registration — weight 10

Whether the operating location is found in the facility register (where the country has one; otherwise this axis is not applicable).

Register class: Facility register — NABH — National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers, 'Find an Accredited Healthcare Organisation' directory (voluntary quality accreditation/certification/empanelment register covering hospitals, Small Healthcare Organisations, and some stand-alone facilities).

ValueAnchor
5Record found: name, address and status match.
4Record found with a spelling discrepancy.
3Register exists; no record found (we do not claim 'unlicensed').
2Only the clinic's own statement.
1A published registration number is contradicted by the register (verified false → flag).

M5 · Legal-entity traceability — weight 8

Who is legally responsible: a legal entity in the company register, tied to the brand and the address.

Register class: Company register — Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) — 'View Company/LLP Master Data' on the MCA21 V3 portal (mca.gov.in): the official company/LLP register (CIN/LLPIN, incorporation date, status, registered office, directors).

ValueAnchor
5Legal entity and registration number published and matched in the register.
4Matched by name.
3Legal entity named; register not accessible.
2Brand only.
1No legal entity found after a full pass (verified conflict → hold H2).

M6 · Self-disclosure of identifiers — weight 10

Whether the clinic itself publishes the numbers needed to re-check it (licences, certificates with issuer). Disclosure is rewarded; a missing number is not a missing licence.

ValueAnchor
5All load-bearing numbers published with issuers.
4Physician numbers published; facility or legal-entity numbers not.
3Partial, without issuers.
2Logos without numbers.
1No identifiers at all.

M7 · Advertising honesty — weight 12

A machine profile of the clinic’s own claims: outcome guarantees, ‘100% safe’, ‘No. 1’ or ‘best’ without an issuer, ‘unlimited grafts’, before/after presented as a promise, foreign boards presented as the national specialist board. Every deduction cites an exact quote with URL, locale and date.

ValueAnchor
5No pattern from the lexicon found.
4One or two soft superlatives.
3Systematic superlatives without guarantees.
2Guarantee or ‘100%’-class statement (bright line; cap candidate).
1Verified fake credential (flag + cap).

M8 · Cross-locale consistency — weight 5

Whether facts agree across the language fronts of the clinic's own site (physician, numbers, accreditations) — a mechanical comparison of extracted fields.

ValueAnchor
5All load-bearing fields agree.
4Spelling discrepancies.
3Some facts appear on only one front.
2A load-bearing fact (physician or number) differs.
1Fronts contradict each other on credentials (H2 candidate).

M9 · Patient documents — weight 5

Presence check for five document classes: informed consent, risks/contraindications, aftercare, revision policy, complaint route. Presence only — the quality of the documents is not assessed.

ValueAnchor
5All five classes published.
4Four.
3Two or three.
2One.
1None.

The formula

Each axis value 1–5 is mapped to 0–1. The composite is the weighted average over the axes that hold a value: axes that are not applicable in this country and axes we could not verify drop out of the normalisation.

composite = 100 × Σ(weight × (value − 1) / 4) / Σ(weight of axes with a value)
score = min(composite + focus adjustment, lowest active ceiling), clamped to 0…100

Coverage threshold: a score is published only when at least 75% of the applicable axis weight holds a sourced value. Below that the record shows 'verification pending' and carries no rank.

Focus adjustment

A mechanical classification from the clinic's own menu.

FocusAdjustment
specialist0
aesthetic in general clinic-2
spa or salon addon-5

Score ceilings

A ceiling is applied only from a verified-false finding — never from 'not found'. Each ceiling is rendered from a fixed template with the exact quote or register entry and its URL; no free text is written about a named clinic.

CeilingMax scoreWhat triggers itFixed wording
Verified false accreditation or licence claim45A claimed accreditation, board certification or licence is contradicted by the official register. Never applied on 'not found' alone.The register {registry} (record dated {date}) does not confirm the credential claimed at {url}: “{quote}”. Under this methodology the score is capped at {cap}. The clinic has been offered a right of reply.
Outcome guarantee or ‘100% safe’-class statement65The clinic's own published text guarantees a result or absolute safety. Applied only with the exact quote.The clinic's own page {url} ({locale}, {date}) states: “{quote}”. Under this methodology an outcome guarantee caps the score at {cap}.
Active sanction in a machine-readable official register45Exists only in countries whose registry map declares a sanctions register. Absence of a sanction is never a finding.Entry in the {registry} register dated {date}: {url}. The score is capped at {cap} and the profile is held pending the clinic's right of reply.

The sanctions ceiling exists only in countries with a machine-readable official sanctions register. In this country: NMC — 'Black List of Doctors' (within the Indian Medical Register), listing physicians whose registration was removed/suspended, with suspension and restoration dates. Absence of a sanction is never a finding.

Holds

Positive verification by default; the hold ladder handles the cases where public records conflict or the physician cannot be identified.

IDHoldEffectFixed wording
H1Clarification requestedprofile provisional, no crownA clarification has been requested from the clinic. The profile is provisional and carries no crown until it is resolved.
H2Material structural conflictceiling after the right-of-reply window (69), 14-day right-of-reply windowPublic records show a material structural conflict ({detail}). After the right-of-reply window the score is capped at {cap}.
H3Responsible physician not identifiablecomposite withheld, unrankedThe responsible physician could not be identified from public sources. The composite score is withheld and the clinic is listed without a rank.

Crowns and procedure slices

A crown is a boolean gate from register-verified axes — never from a clinic's claim. Within a crown, the order is the composite.

CrownMeaningGate
Specialist-ledThe responsible physician holds a current, matching specialist certification in the official register (M1 = 5, official source) and is clearly identifiable (M2 ≥ 4).M1 ≥ 5 (official register) · M2 ≥ 4
Foreign-patient readyThe clinic is verified in the country's official foreign-patient register. Exists only where such a register exists.no such register in this country — this crown does not exist here

Procedure slices list the clinics whose own menu names the procedure (a sourced boolean), ranked by the composite:

Outcome quality

There is no independent measurement of treatment outcomes in this field, and we do not imitate one. The register facts already in the axes are the only quality-adjacent evidence we publish.

How the data is produced (unattended run)

  1. No score without a source — in two passes. A collector records the value, the quote and the URL; a separate verifier reloads the URL and looks for the quote by string match. If the quote is not found, the cell degrades to 'could not verify'.
  2. All negative wording is templated. Ceilings and holds are rendered from fixed strings plus the cited quote or register entry. Nothing free-form is written against a named clinic.
  3. The validator is the build gate. Every axis key must be present (null allowed, absence not), every citation must resolve, ceilings only from verified-false findings with a quote, weights must sum to 100, and superlatives in our own text fail the build.
  4. A checklist per record: at least two independent sources, the register map opened and cited, every axis either a sourced value or an explicit 'could not verify'.
  5. Right of reply without a human in the loop: messages to the contact form or corrections@ are processed as ordinary data input. A correction with a source is applied and logged; a statement without one is published next to the data and the score does not change.

Freshness

Each record shows the real date of its last check. Register axes (M1, M3, M4) are rechecked within 90 days; the advertising axis (M7) within 180 days. Every change is logged in the changelog and in the record's own history.

What this register does not do

Independence: we take no money from clinics, we do not book, we do not refer, and no position can be bought. Data changes only through sourced facts, for every clinic under the same rules.

This site is an independent research project provided 'as is'. Clinic names and public information are used for identification. Nothing here creates a doctor–patient or advisory relationship.

Methodology versions

DateVersionChange
29 August 2026v1.0.0Initial public methodology: nine mechanical axes (M1–M9, weights summing to 100), 1–5 rubric per axis, weighted composite normalised over axes that hold a value, 75% coverage threshold, hold ladder H1–H3, score caps only from verified-false findings, focus penalty, registry-gated crowns.