Dossier · record
Rajdhevee Clinic (ราชเทวีคลินิก) — dermatology chain (Bangkok)
—verification pending
MOPH clinic-licence verifiability 4
Named responsible doctor + TMC registration 2
Licence-number / credential disclosure 2
Independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA/JCI/AACI) 1
Legal-entity traceability (DBD) 3
Patient documentary transparency (risks, consent, terms) 2
Advertising honesty 3
EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency —
Decision-path clarity 2
Public-claim sourcing discipline 2
a named lead resolved in TMC; named-roster / unit link incomplete verification hold · H3 🌐 www.rcskinclinic.com ↗ · RECORD № BCL-RAJDHEVEE · data as of 2026-07-11 · editor-reviewed
Measured · 80%
M1 · MOPH clinic-licence verifiability 4 · 10%
OFFICIAL The clinic publishes a corporate MOPH / HSS operating-licence number ฆสพ.สบส. 1238/2562 in its site footer (Rajdhevee Holistic Clinic Co., Ltd.); a MOPH-portal name search under the tried Thai spellings did not isolate the per-branch records as of 2026-07-11 (a search limitation, not an absence of licence). The single corporate number is not broken out per branch.
M2 · Named responsible doctor + TMC registration 2 · 24%
UNVERIFIED The roster names 56 physicians, each in Thai and Latin with a นพ. / พญ. physician title, and founder / chairman Assoc. Prof. Dr Pichit Suvanprakorn is named; but no per-branch responsible physician (ผู้ดำเนินการสถานพยาบาล) is identified and doctors are not mapped to the 15 Bangkok branches, so the responsible-doctor spine is not closable per unit.
M3 · Licence-number / credential disclosure 2 · 12%
UNVERIFIED No Thai Medical Council (แพทยสภา) licence number is shown for any of the 56 physicians on the roster — physician titles only (0 of 56 carry a number); the founder's 'Diplomate American Board Dermatology' is disclosed generically.
M4 · Independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA/JCI/AACI) 1 · 6%
UNVERIFIED No facility accreditation (HA, JCI or AACI) is published; what is shown are consumer-media brand awards (Hello Beauty Awards, 'The Influential Brands 2018') and generic society memberships — not independent clinic accreditation.
M5 · Legal-entity traceability (DBD) 3 · 8%
UNVERIFIED The operating entity is traceable — Rajdhevee Holistic Clinic Co., Ltd. — with parent Pan Rajdhevee Group Public Company Limited (CIN 0107547000621, a registered public limited company).
M6 · Patient documentary transparency (risks, consent, terms) 2 · 8%
UNVERIFIED A PDPA privacy policy and a generic website Terms of Service are published; both are website-level (liability / IP / use-at-your-own-risk) with no medical informed-consent, contraindication or per-procedure risk sheet.
M7 · Advertising honesty 3 · 12%
UNVERIFIED Award-framed superlatives appear — 'The Most Trusted HIFU Facelift Specialist', 'The Best Acne Specialist Clinic', 'more than 48 years' — presented as consumer-media award titles; no explicit outcome guarantee or FDA-approval claim was found.
Editorial · 20%
E1 · EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency — · 8%
UNVERIFIED editorial — A formal per-locale pass is deferred; the load-bearing facts (footer licence ฆสพ.สบส. 1238/2562, legal entity, award titles) match across the Thai and English fronts — no contradiction was detected in this pass. · provisional
E2 · Decision-path clarity 2 · 6%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Decision-path clarity is limited — a 56-physician roster with no per-branch responsible physician and no licence numbers, so who is accountable at a given branch is not published.
E3 · Public-claim sourcing discipline 2 · 6%
UNVERIFIED editorial — 'Most Trusted' / 'Best Specialist' superlatives are attributed to consumer-media award programmes (Hello Beauty Awards); the group's 'largest data base and know-how' self-description stands without independent sourcing.
Editorial verdict. Rajdhevee publishes a corporate MOPH licence number, a fully traceable listed-group legal entity, and 56 physicians named with นพ. / พญ. titles — a substantial surface. What the record cannot close is the responsible-doctor spine: none of the 56 carry a Medical Council licence number, and no per-branch responsible physician is identified, so accountability per unit is not verifiable. On that structural ground the entry is held (H3) and not ranked. This is a neutral statement about verifiability, not an adverse finding; the chain's right of reply is open.
What this register does NOT measure We do not rate the result of a procedure, a doctor's talent, the survival of a result, complications or "who's better". We verify structural facts: the MOPH facility licence and the responsible doctor's TMC registration, the legal entity (Thai DBD), the doctor's identity, advertising honesty and documentary transparency — and where something is unconfirmed, we say so.