This page explains how patient feedback is collected at our Surat clinic, and how to read reviews of any plastic surgeon without being misled. Written experiences are published here only where the patient has given written consent, so at the moment you will find guidance rather than stories. That is a deliberate choice, and consented feedback will be added to this page as patients offer it.
Informed consent for publishing feedback: Informed consent for publishing patient feedback means the patient has been told, in language they understand, exactly what will be published, where it will appear, how long it may stay online and who will be able to see it, and has then agreed in writing. Consent given for treatment does not cover publication. It is a separate decision, it is free to refuse, and it can be withdrawn later without giving a reason.
Most of us judge a restaurant by its reviews and it works reasonably well. A meal is a small, repeatable thing, everybody who orders it gets roughly the same dish, and the person eating it is a fair judge of whether they enjoyed it. Surgery is none of those things. That is why a wall of warm quotes tells you far less than it appears to, and why it is worth knowing how to read reviews before you read any.
The people who write reviews are rarely a fair sample of everyone treated. Strong feeling is what makes somebody sit down and type, so the delighted and the deeply disappointed are both over represented, while the large quiet middle, the patients who healed steadily and went back to work, usually write nothing at all. Timing skews it further. Feedback written in the first happy week after an operation reads differently from feedback written a year later, once the scar has settled and normal life has tested the result.
A patient can tell you honestly how they were treated: whether the explanation made sense, whether their questions were answered without impatience, whether calls were returned and whether the follow up felt organised. Those things genuinely matter and reviews report them well. What no reviewer can judge is the surgical decision itself, whether that particular flap, that particular timing or that particular staged plan was the sound choice for their problem. A very satisfied patient may have had an operation that another surgeon would have sequenced differently, and they would have no way of knowing.
In reconstructive work the starting problem varies enormously, and the result follows the starting problem as much as it follows the surgery. Two people who both say they had hand surgery may have arrived with a clean tendon cut and a crushed, contaminated hand. Two burn patients may have injuries of quite different depth and extent. The tissue available, general health, diabetes, smoking and how faithfully the physiotherapy is done all pull the outcome around. So a strong result in one person carries almost no information about what is achievable in another.
None of this is a complaint about review sites. They do something useful that nothing else does, which is let ordinary patients describe how they were treated. They simply cannot do the part people most want them to do, which is tell you whether the surgery was right.
This works for any surgeon you are considering anywhere in India, including this one. Five minutes spent this way is worth more than an hour of scrolling.
Open the lowest ratings before you open anything else. You are not looking for whether a complaint exists, because every busy surgeon collects some. You are looking at what the complaints are about and how the clinic answered when something went wrong.
A reviewer describing how the plan was explained, how long they waited, who answered the phone at night and what the follow up looked like is telling you something that will also be true for you. A line about how happy they are is not.
Useful feedback names the actual procedure and roughly when it happened. Praise for a clinic that never says what was done tells you about the reception desk, not about surgical judgement.
Give the most weight to reviewers who started where you are starting, in kind and in severity. A straightforward cosmetic case and a complex limb reconstruction are simply not the same evidence, however good both reviews sound.
Set what you read next to verifiable training and registration, a proper examination, and a written plan that names the operation, the recovery and the possible complications. If those three disagree with the reviews, follow those three.
None of these proves poor care on its own. Each one is a reason to slow down and ask more questions.
This page publishes written feedback only where the patient has given written consent for it to appear. Nothing is lifted from a message, a thank you card or a conversation and put online because it happened to sound good.
If you have been treated here and would like to share your experience, send it on WhatsApp and the team will explain the consent form before anything at all is used. You are equally free to leave a review on the public listings instead, where what you write stays entirely in your own control and is visible to anyone searching. Feedback given privately is just as welcome, and often more useful, because it tells the team where a process needs fixing.
Common questions about how patient experiences are collected, published and sensibly read.
Ask your question →Because none have been published with written consent so far. Written feedback goes online only after a patient has read what publication actually means and has signed a form agreeing to it. Collecting that properly takes time. The quicker alternative, writing something that merely sounds like a patient, would be dishonest, so this page waits.
Only to protect identity. Wording, tone and criticism are left exactly as written, complaints included. What may be removed are details that could identify the patient, a relative or another patient, such as a workplace, a small village name or a date that narrows things down. Nothing is added, and no sentence is rewritten to sound warmer.
No. Nothing is offered in exchange for feedback, and no fee, discount or gift is ever linked to writing one. Paid or incentivised reviews mislead the next patient reading them, which defeats the entire purpose of having reviews. If you are asked for feedback, you are being asked a favour that you are completely free to refuse.
No. Your care, your appointments and your follow up are unaffected by what you write, whether it is praise or criticism. Complaints are more useful than compliments because they show where a process is failing. If something has gone wrong, telling the team directly usually gets it fixed faster than a review does, but you are entitled to do both.
Only with a separate written consent covering images. Agreeing that your words may be published does not permit any photograph to be used, and the two are never combined into a single form. Image consent sets out what will be shown, how the face and identifying marks are handled, and where the images may appear. You may agree to one and refuse the other.
Yes. A parent or guardian can consent on behalf of a young child, and many parents want to help other families who have just had the same news. Two things are handled carefully. The child's identity is protected, and older children are asked for their own view, because a child who will grow up with that story online deserves a say in it.
Send it on WhatsApp, or tell the team at your next follow up visit. If you would like it published, you will be sent a short consent form explaining exactly what will appear and where, and you may change your mind afterwards. You can also leave a review on the public listings, which stays entirely in your own hands.
No. Results depend on the starting problem, the tissue available, general health, diabetes, smoking, age and how healing goes, so two people having what sounds like the same operation can finish quite differently. Another patient tells you what the process feels like, not what your result will be. Only an examination and a written plan can say what is realistic for you.
