• ABOUT ASCI
  • COMPLAINTS
  • CONSUMER
  • INDUSTRY
  • ASCI UPDATES
  • CONTACT US
Advertising with a Conscience

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY:"Krystal Institute "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% job guarantee”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“100% job guarantee in the advertisement it is a misleading advertisement.. stating 100% JOB GUARANTEE in leading newspaper”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser substantiating the claim they had made in the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the claim of “100% job guarantee” was unsubstantiated, in violation of ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, untruthful and misleading, and has contravened the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

COMPANY:"Total Dental Care Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Sabka dentist"

COMPLAINT:

“Sabka Dentist is India’s largest and most accessible chain of dental clinics….”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“We would like to bring to your notice that Sabka Dentist (earlier known as Mydentist) is making representations at various platforms that they are largest / emerging largest dental chains of India which is incorrect. (screenshot of their website reflecting the same attached herewith). You are requested to initiate suitable actions against above said entities for misrepresentations made by them.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI had forwarded a copy of the complaint to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. Advertiser in their response stated that the claim made is based on genuine and published revenue figures for the financial years 2015-16 of the 5 major dental chains in the country as per Government of India’s Registrar of Companies web-site. i.e 1) Axiss Dental P. Ltd, 2) Axiss Dental South P. Ltd, 3) Star Dental Centre P. Ltd (Clove), 4) Today’s Healthcare India P. Ltd, (Denty’s) 5) Total Dental Care P. Ltd. (Sabka Dentist) .Advertiser also stated in a tabular form, the revenue figures of these 5 dental clinics. As this data was not considered directly verifiable, ASCI further requested the advertiser to provide additional details which could have been exact screenshots of the reference quoted by the advertiser in the form of comparative data certified by independent agencies. No response was received from the Advertiser. Upon carefully viewing the website advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Sabka Dentist is India’s largest and most accessible chain of dental clinics….”, was inadequately substantiated. It was not conclusively proven that the five clinics referred to were the only major clinics in the country. The revenue data was not verifiable for authenticity and it was not considered to be acceptable as the primary support to claim “India’s largest”. The comparative data for number of clinics was provided for only one competitor brand. The data was not sufficient to prove that they are the most accessible. The claim is also misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

COMPANY:"PepsiCo India Holding P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Pepsi Gatecrash"

COMPLAINT:

“I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 08.05.2017, at around 9.50 p.m., in the commercial breaks during the serial "Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise bhi"being aired on Sony TV channel, I noticed the advertisement of the drink - Pepsi Gatecrash. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. It should be made incumbent upon advertisers that there should be no content, which is willfully placed in small font, so that it goes unnoticed. I request you to look into the matter and take necessary action. There is scrambled undecipherable one-liner written content in this ad. I confirm this is the advertisement I had complained about.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had in their response, admitted that upon verification, they came to know that the font size of the disclaimer in the TVC was in font size of 6; and that they had advised their agency to take corrective action immediately. Upon carefully viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that in the above circumstances, it is clear that the advertisement had violated part (4) (VII)(1) of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers by using a much smaller font for the disclaimers in the TV advertisement. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Maaza"

COMPLAINT:

"“I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 08.05.2017, at around 9.40 p.m., in the commercial breaks during the serial ""Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise bhi"" being aired on Sony TV channel, I noticed the advertisement of the Maaza drink. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful. There is scrambled and undecipherable written content on this ad. I confirm this is the advertisement I had complained about.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the TV advertisement, the CCC noted that the disclaimers in the TVC were not legible. In the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertisement had violated part (4) (VII)(1) of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Voltas Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Voltas All Star Inverter A/C"

COMPLAINT:

"“I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication.” On 30.04.2017, in the commercial breaks during IPL match being aired live on Sony Six channel around 5.12 p.m., I noticed the advertisement of Voltas Star. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful. There is scrambled and undecipherable written content on this ad. I confirm this is the advertisement I had complained about.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser, in his response, stated that they had followed the ASCI guidelines relating to the font size of TVCs and disclaimers therein. Although advertiser asserted compliance with the ASCI Guidelines on disclaimers, the CCC recommended an independent verification as the disclaimers were not legible when the TVC was reviewed. The independent verification indicated that the font size of the disclaimers in the TVC measures to be about 13 pixels. Upon viewing the advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, and based on independent verification, the CCC concluded that the font size of the disclaimers in the TVC measures to be about 13 pixels, and hence the TVC violated Clause VII.i.2 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers ("For high definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be NOT LESS THAN 18 pixels [18 lines] in a 1080 line raster."). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Rediscover Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“No pain, no surgery, no downtime, no scar, permanent reduction of stubborn fat & clinically proven, no side effects. Lose 5 8 cm through LYPO R (Non-invasive, painless) The visuals in the ad appears to be misleading” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser substantiating the claim they had made in the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the claim “No pain, no surgery, no downtime, no scar, permanent reduction of stubborn fat & clinically proven, no side effects. Lose 5 8 cm through LYPO R (Non-invasive, painless)” was not substantiated with any clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, in particularly about the various claims such as “no pain, no surgery, no scar, no side effects, non-invasive, painless, clinically proven”, etc., and was therefore untruthful and misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sunflower Womens Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The most trusted IVF centre.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that as per their own survey of their results, their results were at par with the other renowned infertility clinics of India; that by writing the word “most trusted” they meant that they were one of the best clinics and that the patients could trust them; and that there was no intention to misguide anybody. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of “most trusted IVF Center” was not substantiated with any cogent information, or authentic comparative data vis-à-vis the data of other similar clinics within that city or region; or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. The claim was therefore considered to be untruthful, and misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement was therefore considered violative of the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. ""

 

COMPANY:"Thareja Home Nursing "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Treat alcohol addicted without consultation. Also claims to be the only institution of Alwar and Bharatpur which gives riddance from bidi, cigarrate, tobacco, laudanum, alcohol, hemp.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Treat alcohol addicted without consultation” was entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by gross exaggeration; and that the claim that the advertiser’s facility was “the only institution of Alwar and Bharatpur which gives riddance from bidi, cigarrate, tobacco, laudanum, alcohol, hemp” was not substantiated with any authentic comparative data vis-à-vis data from other similar clinics of these two towns, or other towns, or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the above claims were untruthful and misleading; and that the advertisement had contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:""X Men Instant Fairness Face Cream ""
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Long Lasting fairness. 2. SPF 15 3. Spot reduction "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"ASCI approached the concerned Media (Dainik Bhaskar Group) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media entity prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of the advertisement that its product gives “long-lasting fairness, spot reduction, and contained SPF 15”, was unsubstantiated and misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement therefore violated the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Airiz Sanitary Napkin"

COMPLAINT:

“World's No.1 Brand”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they had not issued the said advertisement, nor had they authorized any person to issue any such kind of advertisement; and that upon inquiry they had found the distributor who had issued this advertisement and have given showcause notice to him as to why action should not be taken against his distributorship for issuing such type of unauthorized advertisement. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of “World’s No. 1 Brand” was not substantiated with any cogent information, or authentic comparative data vis-à-vis the data of other similar brands, or any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement was violative of the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Ambition School of Competitive education "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"No.1 Institute since last 15 years at Purnea, Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur.” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that their institution has been engaged in providing private coaching classes for Science Stream Students all over India; that their institution has been operational since 2003. They added that they were ‘laymen’ in advertising; they never intended to mislead, misrepresent, or commit fraud through their advertisements. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “No.1 Institute since last 15 years at Purnea, Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur” was not substantiated with any authentic comparative data of their institute vis-à-vis the data of other similar institutes in the three towns mentioned in the advertisement, nor was any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim submitted. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement contravened ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and was also violative of the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Ambition School of Competitive education "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Most trusted Institute @ Purnea, Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur. 2. Scholarship Worth Rs. One Crore” "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that their institution has been engaged in providing private coaching classes for Science Stream Students all over India; that their institution has been operational since 2003. They added that they were growing year by year with increasing number of students and a good record of students passing in XI/XII/IIT/JEE examinations. They added that they were ‘laymen’ in advertising; they never intended to mislead, misrepresent, or commit fraud through their advertisements. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “Most trusted Institute @ Purnea, Bhagalpur & Muzaffarpur” was not substantiated with any comparative data of their institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes in the three towns mentioned in the advertisement; nor was any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim submitted. Further, in respect of the claim “Scholarship Worth Rs. One Crore”, no information was submitted to show the details of the scheme including the criteria for the same, details of students who had been given such scholarships in the past, and independent third-party validation or certification to substantiate this claim. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims they had made in the advertisement; and therefore, the claims made by the advertiser were untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was hence considered to be in contravention of ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”; and that it had also contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Times Centre For Learning Ltd (Timespro)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Trusted by Thousands for their Banking Career.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim “Trusted by Thousands for their Banking Career” was not substantiated with any evidence to prove that the advertiser’s institute is trusted by thousands for their banking career and was misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"International Institution of Technology & Professional Training (IITPT) "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Money back guarantee.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they provide full refund of fees to students who undergo their 3 month study program but don't get a job-placement that pays a salary of at least Rs.12000 a month. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC opined that the advertiser had not provided any details of the scheme, or evidence of either all their students getting placed or getting money back in case they are not placed in support of the claim of “100% Money back guarantee” that had been advertised; and concluded that the claim was not substantiated with any authentic data. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement contravened ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and was also violative of the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Morning Lotus International Preschool"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Awarded as best international preschool in Asia.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the the advertisement had contravened ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”; and that the claim “Awarded as best international preschool in Asia.” was entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by exaggeration. In view of the above, the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and the complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Mukils Englio"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"100% Job Placement Assistance.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job placement assistance” claim and is misleading by implication; and the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code and ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. "

 

COMPANY:"Sure Success Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Jharkhand's only trustworthy and prestigious guiding institute”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of any comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “Jharkhand's only trustworthy and prestigious guiding institute” was entirely unsubstantiated and therefore, the claims made by the advertiser were considered to be untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement therefore contravened the ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and also contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 
 

COMPANY:"Vibrant Academy (I) Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. India's No.1 Choice for IIT-JEE Aspirants. 2. Leader In IIT-JEE Preparation.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of any comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “India's No.1 Choice for IIT-JEE Aspirants”, and “Leader in IIT-JEE Preparation” was entirely unsubstantiated; and hence, the claims made by the advertiser were considered to be untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement therefore contravened the ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and also contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Mody University of Science and Technology"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Ranked #1 Best Private Women's University of Asia.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that “the University had been awarded as "Best Private Women's University in Asia" in the Asia Pacific Education and Technology Summit & Awards 2016 organized by ASSOCHAM India and held on 15th December 2016 at Hotel Taj Vivanta, Panaji, Goa”. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “Ranked #1 Best Private Women's University of Asia” was not adequately substantiated. The advertiser had not submitted any details on the nature and process of the claimed ranking, such as: (i) whether the body in question (ASSOCHAM India) was in any way associated with education sector, or was competent to assess educational institutions, and whether it had any subject specialization in the matter; (ii) the total number of Universities in Asia that were considered for the said ranking: (iii) whether only private women’s Universities were considered, or all women’s Universities; (iv) the parameters which were taken into account for ranking the Universities; (v) whether surveys, if any were conducted to arrive at the above ranking of Universities; and (vi) details of other Universities that had also been given ranks by the same body. The advertiser submitted only the copy of a certificate that is completely silent on all the aspects as discussed as above. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration; and that the advertisement had contravened ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and was also violative of the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Mothers Education Hub"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Rajasthan's No.1 Institute.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of any comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “Rajasthan's No.1 Institute” was entirely unsubstantiated; and hence, the claims made by the advertiser were considered to be untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement therefore contravened the ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”, and also contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "SR Leaders Institution"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Opportunity.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim “100% Job Opportunity” was entirely unsubstantiated. In view of the above, the claim was considered to untruthful and misleading by ambiguity and implication; and the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and the ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Deeksha Classes Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Most trusted brand in Education. 2. Get upto 100% Scholarship"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim of being “Most trusted brand in Education” was not substantiated with any comparative performance data of their institute vis-à-vis other similar institutes; nor was any independent third-party validation or research to prove this claim submitted. Further, in respect of the claim “Get upto 100% Scholarship”, no information was submitted to show the details of the scheme including the criteria for the same, details of students who had been given such scholarships in the past, and independent third-party validation or certification to substantiate this claim. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims they had made in the advertisement; and therefore, the claims made by the advertiser were untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement was hence considered to be in contravention of ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”; and that it had also contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sri Hari Gate Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Success in AEE.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim “100% Success in AEE” was entirely unsubstantiated; the advertiser had not submitted any authentic data, nor was any independent third-party validation or certification of the claim provided. In view of the above, the claim was considered to untruthful and misleading by gross exaggeration; and the advertisement was considered to have contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and the ASCI’s “Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions”. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "SBS Biotech (Unit-II) Ayurvedic Division"
PRODUCT:"Dr. Ortho Capsules & Ointment"

COMPLAINT:

"This is to draw your attention to an advertisement published in Navbharat Times, Delhi edition dt. 25th April 2017. Javed Akhtar, a celebrity is using encashing his status by alluring innocent and people suffering from pain to get rid of JOINT PAIN by using Dr.Ortho Capsules. How is this possible? Take action against Dr.Ortho manufacturing company, Javed Akhtar to stop this type of advt. immediately and stop misleading people and help the suffering people from wasting their hard earned money."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the print advertisement, and in the absence of any comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of “getting rid of Joint Pains by using Dr. Ortho Capsules” was entirely unsubstantiated and misleading by exaggeration; the advertiser had not submitted any authentic data, nor substantiated with clinical evidence, in particularly about the efficacy of the said Dr. Ortho Capsules in curing joint pains; and is hence misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Emami Limited"
PRODUCT:"Emami Kesh King Ayurvedic Oil"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Now in summer no hairfall, dandruff or dryness 2. Hair become long, strong and remain healthy 3. It claims that the weak matrix cells in the roots of the hair are activated by this oil 4. Solution to 5 Hair problems falling hair, dandruff, rough hair, split ends, weak hair 5. With 21 Ayurvedic herbs 6. Scalp and hair medicine 7. Recommended by worlds best hair experts. (Names and pictures of a person from Australia, Japan and India are shown) 8. Testimonial from celebrity Juhi Chawla claims my trust, my confidence?"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claim 1 to 4 need to be substantiated by independent studies and research data. 2. How does it claim to be â scalp and hair medicine?? This needs to be supported with reports from independent studies. 3. Pictures and names of two doctors and one hair expert from India, Japan and Australia are shown saying Recommended by world’s best hair experts. Promotion of any product and recommending it is against the Guidelines and MCI, Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, which state that – a physician shall not give any approval, Recommendation, endorsement or certificate with respect of any therapeutic article, or any commercial product. 4. Claim 6: Exaggerated claims are made in testimonial by Juhi Chawla. It is misleading and creates undue influence on buyers. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser’s response was reviewed by the technical expert. The CCC carefully viewed the print advertisement, and examined the complaint and the response of the advertiser, and considered the opinion of the expert in this matter. The CCC did not consider the claims “5 Hair problems - 1 Ayurvedic solution”, “With 21 Ayurvedic herbs”, and “Scalp and Hair medicine” to be objectionable in view of the earlier CCC recommendation 1610-C.1354 on the claim. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. In respect of the first two claims, i.e., “(i) Now in summer no hair-fall, dandruff or dryness”; (ii) Hair become long, strong and remain healthy; the advertiser stated that the complainant has taken up issues in the first two claims arbitrarily and put them across as claims in the advertisement; and that these are mere “general statements made, based on the Focus Group Discussions and Consumer Qualitative Analysis conducted for the brand”. The advertiser added that these statements represent a “general perception” of all users of Hair Oil products and should be construed as such, and not as a claim. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention and opined that these statements were part of the product’s advertisement, and they clearly “contained some attributes that the product was claimed to be having, due to which the product was described as being capable of delivering certain benefits to the users”, the general public who view the advertisement in all likelihood would only understand them as claims made on behalf of the product. The claim “No hair-fall, dandruff or dryness” was also considered to be an absolute claim. The advertiser did not substantiate the claim of “weak matrix cells in the roots of the hair are activated by this oil” and agreed to discontinue this claim in future communication. ; In respect of the claim “pictures and names of two doctors and one hair expert from India, Japan and Australia” in the advertisement, saying “Recommended by world' s best hair experts”, the advertiser had stated in their response in respect of this complaint that they had “modified this claim to ""renowned hair experts"", however this being a regional advertisement, the meaning of few words/ statements have been slightly changed from what was handed to them in Hindi. The CCC did not agree with advertiser’s submission as it observed that the complaint under reference was in Gujarati and it continued using the claim which was found objectionable earlier as it was considered as untruthful and misleading to the consumers; and the advertisement was considered to have contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. In respect of the exaggerated claims said to be made in the testimonial by Juhi Chawla, and that it is misleading and creates undue influence on buyers, the advertiser stated that “Ms. Juhi Chawla had been associated with their Brand “Kesh King” over the previous 5 years, and that Ms. Chawla’s quote in the advertisement had been endorsed by her and should not be viewed as an additional claim being made by the advertiser but the opinion of the celebrity, being carried out in all communications of the Brand. They added that Ms. Juhi Chawla as a celebrity had quoted that she trusts the product and has confidence in it; and that it is not a product testimony and should not be treated as one; and that Ms. Juhi Chawla had been their Brand Endorser for over 5 years and it is only the trust on the brand that she still uses and endorses the product. They stated that Ms. Juhi Chawla, their celebrity endorser had expressed her satisfaction with usage of their products and its benefits, and shared with them in her declaration that she has trust and confidence in the product; and lastly that it was not a claim but a satisfaction statement which Ms. Chawla had shared on her own accord and hence is a part of the advertising communications.” The CCC observed that the advertiser has used a testimonial by a celebrity which states that she believes in the product and trusts it. The advertiser did not submit any evidence of the celebrity lending her name to this particular communication and any of the claims therein. Furthermore, several claims in the same communication (as referred above) were considered to be unsubstantiated and misleading. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s argument that the celebrity had only expressed her satisfaction with the usage of their products and its benefits; and that this is not a claim made by them but a satisfaction statement. , The CCC opined that the said statement or declaration of satisfaction by the celebrity, made in praise or commendation of the product and publicised through an advertisement, becomes an advertisement in the understanding of the common man, since the consumers are most likely to be influenced by such publicity. Lastly, the CCC noted that there was no information or evidence submitted by the advertiser to show that the celebrity concerned has had “adequate information about, or experience with the product or service being advertised”. In view of the above overall factors, and in the absence of any document submitted by the advertiser in support of the apparent commendation given by the celebrity, the CCC concluded that this claim in the advertisement has contravened the provisions (c) and (d) of ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising; The advertisement violated the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI’s Code. The above referred complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Narang Group"
PRODUCT:"Ocean Active Water"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Inspiring smarter hydration 2. Is your water keeping up with your lifestyle? 3. Get smarter hydration everyday 4. Ocean active water doesn’t just quench your thirst, it replenishes essential minerals and tastes great without artificial sweeteners or colours. 5. Formulated with German expertise 6. 40% less calories 7. Added minerals 8. Calories here is referred in comparison with carbonated sugar based cola drinks available in Indian market"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims 1-5 should be substantiated with independent research data and certified by competent authority. 2. Since the product claims to be water, how is it justified to claim 40% less calories, as water in any case does not have any calories. 3. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 4. What are the quantities of minerals in the 500ml bottle? 5. What is their percentage of RDA? 6. What is the percentage of sugar in the 500ml bottle? 7. The supers are too small to be read and may not be as per the ASCI guidelines for supers According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser’s response was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully viewed the print advertisement, and examined the complaint and the response of the advertiser, and considered the opinion of the expert in this matter and concluded as follows in respect of the complaints on each of the claims: (1) Claims “Is Your Water Keeping up with your Lifestyle”, “Inspiring Smarter Hydration” and “Get Smarter Hydration Everyday” : The CCC considered the response of the advertiser that these words were the tag line of their company, and that they were part of the company’s logo: “O’cean beverages – Inspiring smarter hydration”. They added that the company had applied for registering same as their trademark. The CCC noted that the advertisement headline has a question “Is your water keeping up with your lifestyle?” and the product is presented as a solution claiming it to be a “smarter hydration” Whereas the comparison – in particular related to calories, is actually being made against carbonated sugar based beverages. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s argument that the statement is their Trademark and opined that a trademark cannot be a misinforming and misleading one. The CCC opined that the advertised product, compared with normal water and further considering the sugar levels in the product, could not be promoted as an equal or better alternative than normal drinking water. The advertiser has chosen the comparison in such a way as to bestow an artificial advantage on the advertised product. The CCC, in the context of this advertisement, therefore concluded that the advertisement was untruthful and misleading by ambiguity and implication, and violated the provisions of Chapter I.1, I.4 and IV. 1 (b) (d) (e) of the ASCI Code. The complaints were accordingly UPHELD. Regarding the objection regarding supers in the advertisement, the advertiser admitted that the supers were smaller than the required size. The CCC concluded that the advertisement violated the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines on disclaimers. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD. Claims “Ocean active water doesn’t just quench your thirst; It replenishes essential minerals and tastes great without artificial sweeteners or colours”; “Formulated with German expertise”; “40% less calories”; “Added minerals”, “Calories here is referred in comparison with carbonated sugar based cola drinks available in Indian market”): The CCC considered the material provided by the advertiser in respect of the above claims carefully, and did not consider the claims / statements to be objectionable. These complaints have therefore been NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Dindayal Aushadhy "
PRODUCT:"303 Capsules"

COMPLAINT:

"1. 99% of women get more excited by their partners than by shopping discounts 2. Dindayal 303 increases stamina and improves vitality in men. Sufficient reason to get their partners excited. 3. One capsule daily 4. 100% ayurvedic"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company"
PRODUCT:"Japani Tel"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Token of Love 2.Specially for men for strength 3. Popular and effective 4. For better results use Japani M Capsule with Japani Tel"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Amul"

COMPLAINT:

"25 CRPF men killed in action and this ad makes fun of it."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC opined that Amul advertisements are known to be making a comment on current events. In the backdrop of CRPF soldiers getting killed in Maoist attack, the CCC concluded that while the advertisement was insensitive, it was not likely to cause grave and widespread public offence. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"MRF Corp Limited "
PRODUCT:"Aquafresh Exterior Vapocure Paints"

COMPLAINT:

“In the larger interests of consumers and potential customers I persisted in having this issue flagged with attached evidence. .Would love to have your take. .....The attached advertisement appears to reflect the current trend of over promising and underperforming. The claims made are all couched in generalities and inanities which enable the product and producer go scot-free. The temperatures mentioned fail to specify when they were recorded and whether the reduction really occurred. .over what time interval. .and most importantly whether if the roof temperatures prevailing and the reduction are all programmed to reduce by the same variable constantly. .whether it was tested and validated. .what does "ambient" temperature connote for the uninitiated etc. or whether such words which have "deep built-in interpretational elasticity "to conveniently wriggle out of the expected gaps between claims and reality. .Whether there's some median reduction. .or whether it's just for the photo op or other transient optics and hype. .care to elaborate??? Interesting attempt at. ....!!!”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. However, on the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon. Subsequently, they submitted their written response as stated above. As claim support data, the advertiser provided test experiment results. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully viewed the print advertisement and examined the complaint and the detailed response given by the advertiser as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting, and opined that considering the advertisement in its totality and the response of the advertiser, the claim “Reduce the heat in your house by painting your terrace with AquaFresh Cool” has been reasonably substantiated. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Appin Technology Lab (ATL Foundation)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Guarantee”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Following is the advertisement published in Danik Bhaskar of ATL on dated 21 may 2017 claiming 100% job guarantee is this legal to advertise.”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim, “100% Job Guarantee”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for independent verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, or any independent audit or verification certificate for the specific claim. The CCC further opined that the claim is misleading by gross exaggeration, and hence, the advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Satyadeva Institute"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1) No. 1 Institute in Asansol 2) No. 1 Result Maker Institute 3) Faculties from Patna 4) Test the Best 5) Our Results speak, we don't 6) Advt. claimed 74 results by publishing photographs 7) Advt. claimed 54 results by publishing photographs."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The Satyadeva Institute has repeatedly called itself ""No.1 Institute in Asansol"" and ""No. 1 Result Maker Institute"". It has also claimed that the faculties are from Patna. Operating in Asansol, having faculties from Patna is doubtful and misleading as Patna is the hub for Govt. Job preparations. The advertiser has used terms like ""Test the Best"" and ""Our Results speak, we don't"". This also is highly misleading as no result has been properly verified or audited. In one of its advertisements, the advertiser has put photographs of 54 students, saying that's the result. Whereas, in another advt, it has put photos of 74 students. All this with no proper verification or authentication. The advertiser has been doing this for quite a while now. I feel this is nothing but trying to fascinate students by giving false claims!!”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Facebook advertisements and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claims, “No. 1 Institute in Asansol”, and “No. 1 Result Maker Institute”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation; and are misleading by exaggeration; and that the claims, “Faculties from Patna”, “Test the Best”, and advertisements showing published photographs of students, are untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The Facebook advertisements therefore contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the claim “Our Results speak, we don't”, to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Kalyan Group"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“I recently saw an advertisement in Telugu that Kalyan jewellers were offering Audi A3 for customers who gonna buy gold at Kalyan jewellers but that ad shows that already 29 cars were offered to the costumers till now and Nagarjuna sir who featured in that ad too gonna buy gold and gonna get that last car. Then what the offer they will give to us if we gonna buy gold because the ad itself shown that 30 cars were already offered. This is what the youtube link I would like to submit you: <https://youtu.be/4og1jvLNUvI> Actually the advertisement is not offensive but in my way it is wrong not only me many people too.I took advice from many that they were asking same doubt to me.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the offer for winning of Audi cars is on till 9th June 2017, pursuant to which the winners will be ascertained only after the completion of the offer period. They further stated that through this advertisement they have intended to create an excitement in the minds of their customers to purchase jewelry during the period of the offer and become eligible to participate in the offer. Upon carefully viewing the TVC / YouTube advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC opined that what is contained in the advertisement is a hyperbole to catch the eye of the consumer, which are permissible as part of creative license in advertising. In view of the above, the complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Kohinoor Televideo Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Spreading Joy Since 1967”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"This is to bring to your notice that I have been continuously seeing the advts of Kohinoor in Mumbai Mirror. In their advts they use a line with their logo & Spreading joy since 1967.' This is to bring to your notice that I have been continuously seeing the advts of Kohinoor in Mumbai Mirror. In their advts they use a line with their logo & Spreading joy since 1967.' Normal deduction after reading this line would be that Kohinoor as a retailer has been in existence 1967. And this is a way for Kohinoor to gain the trust of the readers. I am not sure if Kohinoor is as old a retailer in Mumbai. This needs to be verified. If it is not, the retailer is misleading the public by false claims. False claims to gain the trust of the consumers should not be allowed in advertisements."

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that the proprietor concern in the name of Ganesh Radio & TV Corporation was established in 1967 and was continuing in Ulhasnagar; and later on in 2009 the company name was changed to Kohinoor Televideo Pvt Ltd with the Registrar of Companies. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC opined that the claim objected to, “Spreading Joy Since 1967”, was not so substantial in nature as to mislead the consumers. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Go Green with Speed for it reduces emissions”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Please refer to the Attached Tweet by BPCL again lying on the Fossil Fuel being Green post usage! How can the Environment be Green whilst I emit Fumes in the Air? Link of Advertisement: https://twitter.com/BPCLimited/status/855703467268030464"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the twitter advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser’s claim, “Go Green with Speed for it reduces emissions”, was clearly unsubstantiated with supporting data, and therefore is misleading by gross exaggeration and omission . The twitter advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Coconut Development Board"
PRODUCT:"Coconut Oil"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Highly nutritious, rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals 2. A natural antiseptic boosts energy immune system 3. Restore thyroid function and increases metabolic rate 4. Reduces obesity 5. An antioxidant, improves bowel movements 6. Good for kidneys, skin and hair 7. Will not increase cholesterol or heart attacks"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The objectionable matter is reproduced here with comments: 1. Highly nutritious, rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals. Coconut oil has no fibre, no minerals, and no water soluble vitamins. 2. A natural antiseptic boosts energy immune system. All oils are rich sources of energy. What is 'natural antiseptic'? Any evidence about boosting immune system? 3. Restore thyroid function and increases metabolic rate. Claims of medicinal properties bring it under the category of a drug. 4. Reduces obesity. unproven claims. 5. An antioxidant, improves bowel movements to be used as a laxative? 6. Good for kidneys, skin and hair: What is good for kidneys? Good for skin and hair on external application or oral consumption? 7. Will not increase cholesterol or heart attacks? Misleading statement? The relevant part and the whole ad are attached here in. Please order the advertiser to stop such misleading advertisements.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that they have published this advertisement for promoting coconut, coconut oil and Farmer Producer organizations (FPO) with the consent from Dr. D.M.Vasudevan, MD, FRCPath; Head, Post Graduate programs & Research who has conducted a project on coconut oil at Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Kochi. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted item wise reply with literature citings and published research papers, Text book reference; USDA Nutrient Data base, and Research work conducted on coconut oil by Amrita Institute of Medical Science. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC carefully viewed the print advertisement and examined the complaint and the detailed response given by the advertiser as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser had on one hand stated in their response that their advertisement does not deal with coconut oil and whole coconut separately; but on the other hand, it is seen that in the print advertisement that all the benefits are featured under “The multifarious benefit of coconut oil” under a very prominent headline: “From farm to your home, invisible hands are at work to bring you the world’s healthiest oil, the coconut oil”. In view of the above, the CCC opined in respect of each of the claims as follows: (1) Claim - “Highly nutritious, rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals”: It is seen that the advertiser has not adequately substantiated the said claim. Furthermore, coconut oil does not contain any fibre, mineral and vitamins. The CCC therefore concluded that the claim was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. (2) Claim – “A natural antiseptic boosts energy immune system”: The advertiser has in respect of this claim stated that Coconut oil is rich in Lauric acid which is a C12 acid; and that the high percentage of lauric acid and Monolaurin content in coconut oil gives it a natural antiseptic property and ability to strengthen the immune system. It was however seen that the advertiser did not submit any supporting research papers or any evidence of clinical research conducted by any well recognised independent agency to prove that coconut oil has the above properties. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim, “A natural antiseptic boosts energy immune system”, is not adequately substantiated with authentic clinical data; and was misleading. (3) Claim - “Restore thyroid function and increases metabolic rate”: In respect of this claim, the advertiser stated that “Finally, Is coconut oil a thyroid cure? Not by itself. Can it help people with low thyroid function? Yes, because it stimulates metabolism and boosts energy.” The CCC carefully examined the justification given by the advertiser as well as the technical opinion, and opined that the advertiser has not adequately substantiated this specific claim for the product with clinical research data conducted by independent agency. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim “Restore thyroid function and increases metabolic rate” was not adequately substantiated and was misleading by exaggeration. (4) Claim – “Reduces obesity”: The advertiser stated in respect of this claim that the ‘medium chain fatty acids’ (MCT fats) are metabolized differently than the ‘longer chain fats’; coconut oil is thermogenic, and when humans replace the long chain fats and eat MCT fats, they burn more calories; and that coconut oil reduces appetite and boosts fat-burning. The advertiser further sought to support their explanations with published literature citings and text book reference. The CCC examined the response of the advertiser and concluded that the above claim that coconut oil “Reduces obesity” was not acceptable since obesity is due to several reasons such as hereditary, food habits, hormonal functions, etc.; and further, the claim is not substantiated by clinical research data conducted by independent agency with requisite scientific rigour. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim was not adequately substantiated, and was misleading by exaggeration. (5) Claim – “An antioxidant, improves digestion and bowl movement”: The advertiser stated that the “highest amounts of antioxidants in coconut oil are found in virgin coconut oils produced by the wet-milling process”, and that, coconut oil that undergoes refining process is stripped off of the natural antioxidants. While the advertiser had submitted a number of literature citings to support this claim, they have not submitted any clinical research data to show how ‘virgin coconut oil’ prevented oxidative stress in in vivo condition, or that coconut oil is easy to digest for people with impaired fat- digestion which includes people without gallbladders or with gallbladder problems. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the claim, “An antioxidant, improves digestion and bowel movement” was not adequately substantiated and supported with clinical research data and was misleading. (6A) First part of the Claim – “Good for Kidney” : Coconut Board have published research paper citings in support of this claim by. The CCC however observed that these studies are conducted on animals and not on humans, and that it requires to be substantiated with detailed clinical research data proving that a diet based on coconut oil is beneficial to diabetic patients with control on creatinine, urea, and blood urea nitrogen. In the absence of substantiation in this regard, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Good for Kidney” has not adequately been substantiated, and therefore was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. 7) Claim – “Will not increase cholesterol and heart attacks”: The Advertiser cited several references to the clinical trials conducted in animals to show that coconut oil plays no role in cholesterol formation, and also referred to clinical trials conducted by Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences on humans, conducted on Type II diabetics vs Normal people using coconut oil and sunflower oil for comparative study on a group of selected south Indians. The Coconut Board also cited a few studies published in Indian Heart Journal on patients having coronary artery disease and the study results. The Board had conducted trials on humans with and without Type II diabetes, and they had summarised the results of clinical research study giving references of publications in which these results were published, in the annexure. It was however seen that a copy of such published articles was not attached as annexure to support the above claim. The advertisement was also not carrying any reference to the published article on which basis above claim was being made. Given the fact that heart attack is a lifestyle disease and there are several reasons for the same, connecting cholesterol and heart attack with coconut oil consumption regularly to prove that formation of LDL is controlled and HDL is improved, leading to no risk of Heart Attack, requires detailed clinical study reports. The CCC therefore opined that from the supporting documents submitted by the advertiser, one could not arrive at a conclusions that coconut oil does not increase cholesterol and the risk for heart attack. The CCC concluded that the claim, “will not increase cholesterol and heart attacks”, was not adequately substantiated and therefore was untruthful, and misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The above complaints were accordingly UPHELD. (6B) Second part of the Claim: “Coconut Oil is good for skin and hair”: The CCC concluded that coconut oil is generally accepted universally as being a good lubricating oil for human body and hair. This part of the complaint, was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Amazon.com, Inc "
PRODUCT:"Our Organik Tree- jaggery powder"

COMPLAINT:

"“The advertisement claims to purify the blood and solve lot of other health problems. No product can claim to purify the blood since there is no standard of pure blood”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser (Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd) for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. Amazon was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. The CCC noted that no response was received from Amazon prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from Amazon, the CCC concluded that the advertised claim of the Jaggery product being a “Blood Purifier”, is clearly unsubstantiated with any scientific clinical evidence and product efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Dr Batra’s Positive Health Clinic - Dr Batra’s Homoepathic Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Clinical studies in Europe have shown that after homeopathic treatment 83 per cent of women patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome had no signs of ovarian cysts. There was a marked reduction in their hair loss too. 2. It has been found that the recurrence rate of patchy hair loss (alopecia areata) was just 9.1 per cent in patients treated with homeopathy, whereas it was as high as 50 per cent in patients who took conventional treatment for the disorder."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response that: (1) Clinical studies conducted in Europe had shown that after homeopathic treatment, 83 per cent of women patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome had no signs of ovarian cysts and there was a marked reduction in their hair loss too (the advertiser submitted a screenshot of the study and the link of the same for reference); (2) that the recurrence rate of patchy hair loss (alopecia areata) was found to be just 9.1 per cent in patients treated with homeopathy, against 50 per cent in patients who took conventional treatment for the disorder. The advertiser further cited a book, “HAIR Everything You Ever Wanted to Know” written by Dr Akshay Batra. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint, the response given by the advertiser as well as the expert opinion, the CCC observed that the substantiation of the first claim (that after homeopathic treatment, 83 per cent of women patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome had no signs of ovarian cysts and a marked reduction in their hair loss) was from a website and the full text of the article was not provided by the advertiser. The CCC further noted that the sample size in this study was only 36 individuals which was too small to draw any conclusions with adequate statistical rigor. In view of the above, the CCC opined that the first claim was inadequately substantiated by the advertiser. In respect of the second claim, the CCC observed that the book that was shown as scientific evidence was authored by Dr. Akshay Batra, who is an interested party in the advertiser, Dr. Batra’s Clinic. It was further seen that the study that apparently formed the basis for the book had not been published in any reputed peer-reviewed journal. For these reasons, the CCC concluded that the substantiations offered by the advertiser for their claims were not acceptable, and that the claims made by the advertiser in the advertisement are untruthful and misleading, and contravene the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Emami Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Kesh King Shampoo"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint 1: “FOR MY HAIRFALL I THINK KESK KING IS BETTER THAN SESA AND ASWANI. I FROM MY PERSONAL OPINION I THINK KESH KING IS THE ULTIMATE FOR HAIR LOSS. FEW MONTHS BACK I SUFFER FROM HAIR FALL SO I USED SESA AND ASWANI BUT THE HAIR FALL DOES NOT STOP. THAT TIME ONE OF MY RELATIVE SUGGESTED ME KESH KING. FROM THAT TIME I REGULARLY USE KESH KING AYURVEDIC OIL & SHAMPOO AND TAKE CAPSULE. WITHIN ONE MONTH MY HAIR FALL REDUCE AND MY HAIR GROW IN LENGTH AND HEALTHY. I THINK I HAD FOUND AN EXPERT OIL. AFTER USING THIS OIL I GOT RESULT SO I CANT LEAVE THIS OIL. NOW KESH KING OIL IS MY LIFE PARTNER. It has been observed since few days, Emami ltd (brand: Kesh King) is doing unethical advertisement by stating negative feedback mentioning competitor brand (Our brand SESA) into their advertisement. As you are regulatory authority this is to mention that such type of practice should be strictly taken for penalty and actions on immediate basis. we would like to inform you that being a brand SESA oldest into the category, we also have many feedback from consumer mentioning the negative feedback of many brands. But being an ethical advertiser and following all code of conduct prescribed by your, we have never published name of the brand and filtered all the feedback on ethical background. But are surprised to see the advertisement of KESH KING clearly mentioning name of our brand SESA and other company's brand into their advertisement published in Anand Bazaar Patrika newspaper on below mentioned dates 1. 21st May 2017 page no 9 2. 22nd May 2017 page no 9 3. 24th May 2017 page no 7 We are attaching all the above copy of advertisement and also english version of opinion published in Bengali into the said advertisement” Complaint 2: “In the last week we came across an advertisement caused by M/s Emami Ltd. of Kolkata in a daily newspaper ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA on 21.05.2017 in respect of their keshking hair oil. In the said advertisement M/s Emami Ltd. got published an opinion of a person. The statements are defamatory in nature and causing dis reputation. We are producing English version of the said advertisement for kind perusal of your Good Office. I feel keshKing oil is more effective in controlling my hair fall than Aswini Hair Oil and sesha hair Oil I am telling from my personal experience that I can think of nothing else other than Keshking for controlling my Hair Fall. A few months back I was having lot of hair fall, I used sesha and Aswini Hair Oil but my hair fall did not stop. At this time one of my relative suggested me to use Kesh King Ayurvedic oil. I regularly use keshking oil, keshking shampoo and also used capsules. Within one month my hair fall reduced. My hair became longer and healthier. I think my search for the right product has finally come to an end. I got very much benefited after using this oil I will never leave this product in my life time. Now Keshking oil has become a life partner for my hair. There are many others who share similar opinions. Opinion of Kopila Rajbamshi-Nepal UPON a perusal of the above advertisement a person would start thinking that Aswini Homeo hair oil would not stop falling of hair and that Keshking oil would stop hair falling. We submit that before commencing production of any product we undertake research about proposed product. We got a separate Research and Development Department with eminent and experts in the field. Similarly before commencing production of Aswini Homeo Hair oil we took much pain in research and development and our product is being sold worldwide and we got highest sales and good reputation in the market. We are producing not only Aswini Homeo Hair Oil but also several other products such as Aswini, Amla, Reetha and Hibiscus Shampoo. All our products are being sold worldwide and we got customers in lakhs not in thousands. Since beginning we take care and caution in maintaining quality in production. We never had any complaint from any consumers and or customers. BUT the subject advertisement is giving a wrong message to the public and at the same time it is causing dis reputation to our product and the said advertisement is nothing but defamatory statement against our product. If M/s Emami wants to advertise their products, they can do so, but they cannot compare their products with the products of others and they have no right to make such false statements. Causing such advertisement and comparing their product with our product is nothing but unfair advertisement. In view of the said false claim and unfair advertisement, there are chances of loss of reputation and good will of our product. As such we have decided to initiate appropriate proceedings against M/s Emami Ltd. We are in the field since more than two decades as such we are bringing the above aspect to the notice of your Good Office first to take appropriate action against M/s Emami Ltd. We, therefore, request your Good Office to kindly initiate appropriate proceedings against M/s Emami Ltd. for making such false claim and for making defamatory statements and for the act of unfair advertisements."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser stated in their response in respect of both the complaints that when they had received similar feedback (testimonials) from their consumers, and thought as to why they could not use the same in one their advertisements using such testimonials; and that they had not altered in any manner the communication received from the consumer; and had, as a matter of precaution, asked for the consumer's approval on the print advertisement made by the Company basis her feedback, before sending the same for publication purposes. They enclosed a copy of the original testimonial received from the consumer, in this regard. They further stated that it is a settled principle of law that an advertiser is entitled to state that “their product is the best in the market”; and cited certain court judgements: (1) Reckitt & Coleman Vs Kiwi TTK Ltd [1996 (16) PTC 393]: (2) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd vs. M.P. Ramchandran & Another [1999 (19) PTC 741]: They further stated that in the subject advertisement, they had stated the matter as was exactly received by them from the concerned consumer without any distortion or twisting to their advantage. They added that their product delivers on the advertised claims and benefits. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had justified their including the ‘customer’s testimonial’ in their advertisement, mainly on the basis of the High Court judgment in Reckitt & Coleman vs. Kiwi TTK Ltd (1996 (16) PTC 393), in which the principle that “A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue” was enunciated by the Honourable High Court. The CCC however observed that the advertiser had ignored the later judgments of the higher courts on the same matter; particularly the judgment of the Delhi High Court in 2013 in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company & Others vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, in which the court specifically dealt with the above cited judgment in Reckitt & Coleman matter, and said: “….. (d) He however, cannot, while saying that his goods are better than his competitors', say that his competitors' goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words, he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible….. While hyped-up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible, therefore, for anybody to make an off-the-cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival”. Further, the Supreme Court of India, in the Tata Press vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (1995) case, had stated inter alia: “… The ""Commercial speech"" which is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article 19(2) of the Constitution and can be regulated/prohibited by the State”. Thus it is clear from the above that the response of the advertiser that they were entitled to make statements in their advertisements, even if such statements are untrue, is untenable in law, and the judgment they had relied upon has since been overruled. The CCC further observed that having included the testimonial of a customer in their advertisement, the advertiser had not provided any evidence to substantiate the basis of opinion of the customer. The CCC therefore concluded that the claims made in the advertisement through inclusion of statement of a customer as ‘testimonial’, i.e., “I feel keshKing oil is more effective in controlling my hair fall than Aswini Hair Oil and sesha hair Oil. I am telling from my personal experience that I can think of nothing else other than Keshking for controlling my Hair Fall. A few months back I was having lot of hair fall, I used sesha and Aswini Hair Oil but my hair fall did not stop. I regularly use keshking oil, keshking shampoo and also used capsules. Within one month my hair fall reduced. My hair became longer and healthier. I think my search for the right product has finally come to an end. I got very much benefited after using this oil. There are many others who share similar opinions”, are not adequately substantiated, and are misleading. The advertisement therefore contravenes the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint is accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Sheth Brothers"
PRODUCT:"Kayam Tablets"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Constipation, acidity, gas? Kayam Tablet. 2. 100% ayurvedic 3. No side effects 4. Non habit forming 5. Kayam tablet take at bed time and get set for a healthy day"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims 1-4 should be substantiated with independent research data and certified by competent authority. 2. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 3. Have the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 4. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 5. How long does the effect lasts? What conditions are required for this? 6. Is the treatment safe for all patients? Does one require to take it under doctor’s supervision? 7. How long can one take this product? 8. What happens when one stops using this product? 9. What is the dosage of this product? According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action we propose - this advt should be immediately withdrawn”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and requested for a further extension of time to submit their written response. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the extended due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any specific claim support data from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Constipation, acidity, gas? Kayam Tablet”, “100% Ayurvedic”, “No side effects”, “Non habit forming”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the claim “Kayam tablet take at bed time and get set for a healthy day” to be objectionable. This part of the complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sheth Brothers"
PRODUCT:"Kayam Tablets"

COMPLAINT:

"1. India’s number 1 brand for (relief from) constipation 2. 100%ayurvedic 3. No side effects 4. Non habit forming 5. Best solution for constipation, acidity, gas 6. Most trusted of the country 7. Crores of people have got relief from constipation due to this 8. It is safe and most effective"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims 1-8 should be substantiated with independent research data and certified by competent authority. 2. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 3. Have the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 4. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 5. How long does the effect last? What conditions are required for this? 6. Is the treatment safe for all patients? Does one require taking it under doctor’s supervision? 7. How long can one take this product? 8. What happens when one stops using this product? 9. What is the dosage of this product? According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn. Action we propose - this advt should be immediately withdrawn.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and requested for a further extension of time to submit their written response. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the extended due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any specific claim support data from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims (in Gujarati) as translated in English, “India’s number 1 brand for (relief from) constipation”, “100% Ayurvedic”, “No side effects”, “Non habit forming”, “Best solution for constipation, acidity, gas”, “Most trusted of the country”, “Crores of people have got relief from constipation due to this”, “It is safe and most effective”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dabur India Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dabur Active Blood Purifier Ayurvedic"

COMPLAINT:

“Dabur Active Blood Purifier purifies blood…”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“The advertisement claims to purify the blood through use of an AYURVEDIC syrup. There is no standard for the pure blood in the world. How can than anybody claim that they can purify the blood. The only way blood can be purified is mentioned on my blog www.healthyindianow.in. Reading the home page of my blog will help you understand the nature of misleading the advertisement.”

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had stated in their response in respect of the complaint, “no standard for the pure blood in the world; How can than anybody claim that they can purify the blood”, that: Dabur active Blood Purifier is an Ayurvedic product prepared keeping in mind Ayurvedic principles like Nidana (etiological factors), Samprapti (Pathogenesis) etc., of Tvalghata rogas (Skin diseases) etc.; and that Dabur Avtive Blood Purifier is a proprietary Ayurvedic formulation with herbal ingredients like Manjishta, Sveta Sariva, Haridra, Madhusnuhi, Guduchi which are mentioned as Rakta Shodahak (Rakta = Blood; Shodhak= Purifier or Purification) in scheduled Ayurvedic texts. As per Ayurveda, vitiation of Blood and Doshas (Bio Humors) have been mentioned as the etiological factors in the skin disorders. Therapeutic bloodletting, emesis, local applications etc., have been advised for the management of skin disorders, the first line of treatment being purifying the vitiated blood and doshas. For this, a separate class of herbs, known as Rakta Shodhaka (Blood purifiers) and Rakta Prasadaka (boosters of haemopoitic system) have been indicated which purify the blood impurities and maintain skin health as per Ayurvedic Texts; The CCC noted that the advertisement was with reference to pimple problems and that the advertiser had conducted efficacy study of the product in the management of skin health condition like Acne vulgaris and hyperpigmentation. Upon carefully viewing the Internet advertisement, examining the complaint, and the response given by the advertiser as well as the expert opinion, the CCC, in the context of permissible Ayurvedic nomenclature and the intended benefit of the product, did not consider the product descriptor “Blood purifier” to be objectionable. The complaint is accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Rediscover Clinic Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Rediscover Laser, Slimming, Skin and Hair Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

"In Ahmedabad another weight loss centre claiming "5 kg weight loss and 21 cms ""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Advertiser did not provide details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Lose upto 5 kg weight with 21 cms from overall body”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Lotus Herbals Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Lotus Herbals Limited Safe Sun UV Screen Matte Gel"

COMPLAINT:

"The claims being made on the pack and in the TVCs promise high levels of skin protection as well as protection from sun induced damage to the consumers. However, the claims are totally false and misleading, and ought to be immediately discontinued. Advertising such misleading claims is also contrary to the principles of fair competition in the market. On pack claims: The front of pack of the product shows sun protection values of SPF 50 and PA+++. Placement of UVA’ and ‘UVB’ next to ‘PA+++’ and ‘SPF 50’ implies that the product provides protection from both UVA and UVB rays. Further, the back of pack of the product wrongly claims that: ""It protects against all forms of Sun induced Claims being shown in the TV Commercial: In one of the TV Commercial which is currently on air, the advertiser shows UVA and UVB rays getting reflected from the model’s face thereby implying that the product provides protection from UVA and UVB rays. A snapshot from the relevant TVC is provided below for reference. In another recent TV Commercial being aired during the IPL match broadcast, the VO says, “skin needs protection even in these lights” referring to floodlights of the stadium. It further states that “Match ho at 4 ya 8, Lotus safe sun karega harmful rays se fight”. The claims indicate that Lotus Safe Sun products including MatteGEL SPF 50 will protect skin from harmful rays of the sun as well as harmful rays from the stadium floodlights, which need scientific substantiation. We would like to submit the following in order to support our stand that the above claims are misleading for the Indian consumers, and usage of the Product can jeopardize their health: The product packaging claims indicate that it protects against all forms of Sun induced damage: skin tan, skin burn, pre-mature ageing and skin cancer. In order to claim protection against all forms of sun damage, the product is expected to contain adequate amounts of sunscreen ingredients in the formulation. However, from the ingredient list provided on the back of pack of the product, is it evident that the product contains only one sunscreen ingredient, which is Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid. Further, as per an independent laboratory analysis, it has been confirmed that the ingredient Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid is present in less than 2.5% W/W quantity in the product. The table below shows the results of independent laboratory tests wherein samples from recently manufactured different batches and geographies have been tested to establish the same. A copy of the reports is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C(Colly.). It is submitted that the product cannot give the claimed protection on the basis of just one sunscreen ingredient, that too in low quantity as shown in the table. Measured UVA/ UVB protection provided by Lotus Safe Sun UV Screen MattGEL SPF 50 PA+++: An In-Vitro Study as per ISO 24443 was conducted by an independent Australian laboratory in order to ascertain the actual SPF and PA values of the Product. The results of the study show that the Product has clearly failed on the relevant parameters basis which SPF 50 and PA+++ is being claimed by the Advertiser. A brief snapshot of the results of the study are provided in the table below. The detailed report annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D (Colly): The product therefore wrongly claims protection from all forms of skin damage, ranging from sun tanning to skin cancer as it misleads the consumers into believing that it provides a superior sun protection to consumers from preliminary to acute to chronic effects of exposure to UVA and UVB rays. A published document - Global Solar UV Index- A Practical guide enumerating harmful effects of UV radiation is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure E for reference. As per published study, Indian skin (type IV/ V) is more prone to tanning. Tanning is primarily a result of overexposure of skin to UV radiation and is caused mainly due to UVA radiation. UVA protection is therefore as important as UVB protection for Indian sunscreen users. However, it is clear that the Product does not provide claimed protection against both UVA as well as UVB rays. A copy of the published study Fitzpatrick skin typing: Applications in dermatology is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure F. The Advertiser must therefore be called upon to substantiate the above sun protection claims by way of credible independent laboratory reports basis prescribed testing methods. The Product through its on pack claims has also trivialized the seriousness of major skin problems by stating that it protects from skin cancer. The Product, being a cosmetic cannot be allowed to make such a claim because as per the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, even a drug may not purport to prevent or cure or make claims to prevent or cure diseases like cancer. It's also a known fact that higher amount of sunscreen ingredients tend to hamper the end sensory feel in a sunscreen product. Hence, the Advertiser has been able to claim a superior sensorial feel to the Product without fulfilling the claimed sun protection. Thus having an unfair competitive advantage."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but requested (post the due date) for an extension of 15 days to respond. As the timeline for responding had already exceeded, the Advertiser was advised to respond within a day’s time. The Advertiser further informed that as it was not possible to present their submission within such a short time, and that they would require at least 10 days to present their submission. As complaints have to be processed in a time bound manner, the advertiser was not granted this additional extension. Upon viewing the TVCs and the product packaging provided by the complainant, and in the absence of any response or comments from the Advertiser substantiating the claims they had made in the advertisement, the CCC concluded that the pack claims, “SPF 50”, “PA+++”, ""It protects against all forms of Sun induced damage: skin tan, skin burn, pre- mature ageing and skin cancer”, “An innovative sun block which is totally non-oily and provides a fresh and clean finish to the face, neck and hands”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by implication and exaggeration. The CCC observed that the first TVC claims, “Lotus safe sun karega harmful rays se fight”, indicate that Lotus Safe Sun products including MatteGEL SPF 50 will protect skin from harmful rays of the sun as well as harmful rays from the stadium floodlights. The second TVC shows UVA and UVB rays getting reflected from the model’s face thereby implying that the product provides protection from UVA and UVB rays. These claims made in the TVCs were not substantiated with scientific evidence of product efficacy, and with technical tests/trials reports from an independent third party. Also, these claims are misleading by implication and exaggeration. The product packaging and the TVCs contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. These complaints were accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Techno Plastic Industries"
PRODUCT:"Signoraware"

COMPLAINT:

"Advertising shows signoraware products are safer than ordinary plastic products, ordinary steel products. (The Hindu paper may 21, Visakhapatnam) Many grave risks were associated with using ordinary plastic and steel products as per Signoraware. The things said about ordinary plastic products needs clarification. Especially the manufacturers not following guidelines. In that case I need to proceed to complain to the respective ministry why the standards are not adhered to. Advertising says ordinary steel may contain cobalt 60, which causes cancer. Steel may contain nickel which cause skin allergy. Steel has risk of rusting & violates the requirement if 16% chromium. All these claims need proof. But nothing is mentioned in the advertising to substantiate the claims."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the comparison claims made against ordinary steel products, “Steel might contain Cobalt 60, a radioactive isotape that causes cancer”, “Steel might contain migration of nickel (0.7 mg/kg – PPM) from metal resulting in skin allergies”, and “Steel has a higher risk of rusting and violates the requirement of a minimum of 16% chromium”, were not substantiated with supporting evidence. The CCC further opined that these claims are likely to mislead consumers to believe, without any justifiable basis, that the Advertiser’s product - Signoraware is superior to ordinary steel products, thus thereby denigrating the entire category of steelware. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and IV.1 (d) and (e) of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Honda Activa 4G"

COMPLAINT:

"“The pillion rider is wearing non ISI helmet. This is a punishable offence as per the central motor vehicle act. Every two wheeler rider needs to wear ISI helmet while riding two wheeler. In this case the lady is wearing Helmet which is not as per the specifications of BUREAU of Indian Standards. Such advertisement promotes unsafe riding practices. I am sending you the screenshot of the ability sent by you where the pillion rider is wearing a helmet which does not fit with the specifications laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards for ISI helmet for two wheeler riders. In this advertisement the helmet is like a frying pan. Such designs of helmet do more harm if someone meets with an accident.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that they as a brand, have always advocated safe driving riding among all its customers. They further gave the details of the provisions of law under the Central Motor Vehicles Act that provide for compulsory wearing of protective headgear by users of two-wheelers conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards. The advertiser sought to state that the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes protective head gear only for riders of the two-wheeler vehicle, without mentioning the same for pillion riders”. The advertiser further cited the provisions of law on the matter in Karnataka State (where the TVC was made) which provide that “Every Person driving or riding (both for rider and pillion rider) a motorcycle of any type….within the limits of Karnataka State shall wear protective head gear” and that these rules only mention protective head gear without the specifying any particular standards as such for the same. The advertiser finally stated that it was never their intention to promote unsafe riding practices among the public. The CCC carefully viewed the TVC, examined the complaint, and the detailed response of the advertiser. The CCC observed that certain points made by the advertiser in their response were self-contradictory. The advertiser stated in their response in respect of one point that “the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifies prescribes protective head gear to be worn only by riders of the vehicle without mentioning the same for pillion drivers”. However, they themselves quoted subsection (1) of section 129 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which specifies that “every person driving or riding shall while in public place, wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards” (emphasis added), from which it is very clear that the Central Motor Vehicles Act clearly provides that both drivers and other riders of two wheelers (which indicates pillion riders), while riding the vehicle in public places have to wear protective headgear. The CCC further noted that the advertiser had given description in detail, of the provisions of the Karnataka Act in this regard, in which State, the TVC was reportedly made. However, it remains a fact that the TVC is broadcast all over the country, which makes it mandatory that the provisions of the Central Act apply. In view of the above and in the absence of any data to indicate that the helmet worn by the pillion rider is BIS compliant..."", the CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened the provisions of Chapters III.3 and III.4 of the ASCI Code (“Advertisements shall not, without justifiable reason, show or refer to dangerous practices or manifest a disregard for safety or encourage negligence”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"OPTM Healthcare Private. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"OPTM is publishing the deceiving and ambiguous advertisement in different News Papers (Kolkata edition) on regular basis and misleading the sufferers. OPTM is publishing the deceiving and ambiguous advertisement in different News Papers (Kolkata edition) on regular basis and misleading the sufferers. In Bengali newspaper (Ananda Bazar Patrika) on 27th April, 2017 OPTM has falsely claimed that their treatment system has been certified by AYUSH Department, Government of India during an award ceremony. In fact, it was an event organised by a private organisation where the AYUSH Minister, Shri Shripad Yesso Naik was invited as a Chief Guest to present awards. The award which was conferred to OPTM had nothing to do with the AYUSH Department nor it had any kind of accreditation from the Indian Government. This sort of false propaganda from OPTM is sure to deceive and mislead people. Furthermore, the self-proclaimed so called Chief Scientist, Mr. Apurba Ganguly claims of curing patients from joint pain problems based on his dubious research of 30 years. How can someone who calls himself a scientist treat patients? Only Registered Medical Practitioners can treat patients. And there is no documentary evidence with Mr. Apurba Ganguly for stating himself as a Scientist, let alone Chief Scientist. Again, this kind of deception and false self-proclamation is highly condemnable and an offence. Moreover, OPTM boasts of being certified by EMA European Medical Association as the Best Medical Practice in the field of Pain Treatment. While EMA itself does not have any degree of credibility or affiliation whatsoever, any kind of certification by it clearly does not validate OPTM’s treatment system in any way. It is again very outrageous from the part of OPTM to make false assurances that their medicines, which are yet to come in the market, will cure all kinds of joint problems. OPTM states that their phytomedicines used in the treatment of joint problems are USA patented & certified by USDA Organic. How does this in any way authenticate the use of OPTM’s phytomedicines to be used in India? Which recognized health body in India has endorsed OPTM’s phytomedicines to be utilised for treatment purpose? Kindly take necessary action at your earliest convenience."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. In respect of the complaint that the advertiser had falsely claimed that their treatment system has been certified by AYUSH Department, the advertiser stated in their response that they had only mentioned about receiving an award from the AYUSH minister Sri Shripad Yesso Naik in a Conference held in Goa; and they had not mentioned of receiving any certification from the AYUSH department. However, it is seen that the title of the advertisement given by the advertiser in Bengali language reads: “Ministry of Ayush honoured the innovative treatmentprocedure for arthritis invented by OPTM”; and a part of the body of the advertisement reads: “Recently in a conference held in Goa, innovative Phytotherapy used by OPTM, was praised by Central government’s Ministry of Ayush and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. Central Ayush minister Sri Sripada Nayak awarded Apurba Ganguly for relentlessly spending 30 years for the research of pain treatment. This is one of the most prestigious recognition for OPTM Healthcare’s innovative Phytomedicine treatment as well”. From this it is clear that the advertiser had misrepresented the fact of receipt of an award from the Ayush Minister who was the chief guest in that function, as “Ministry of Ayush honouring OPTM”. In respect of the complaint that the advertiser OPTM was making false assurances that their medicines, which are yet to come in the market, will cure all kinds of joint problems; and that their phytomedicines used in the treatment of joint problems are USA patented & certified by USDA Organic without any authentication of the same in India, the advertiser stated in their response that “OPTM Health Care does not claim to cure any joint problems it just tries to give relief to patients”. However, it is seen that in their advertisement, they had stated: “OPTM Healthcare relentlessly continues (to) try treating arthritis pain…”. The CCC opined that regardless of whether the claim of “cure” was used or not, in the absence of any evidence of product efficacy, the claim is misleading by implication. In respect of the complaint on the claim relating to the Chief Scientist, Mr. Apurba Ganguly curing patients from joint pain problems, and that there is no documentary evidence with Mr. Apurba Ganguly for stating himself as a Scientist, let alone Chief Scientist, the advertiser stated that “Apurba Ganguly was a researcher who has many published research papers in peer reviewed international medical journals and also supervises Ph.D students from esteemed University”. However, it is noticed that the advertiser had not given any details of the qualifications, experience details or publications of the said individual. In respect of the complaint on the advertiser’s claim of being “certified by EMA European Medical Association as the Best Medical Practice in the field”, it is seen that the advertiser has not made any substantiation of the specific claim; they instead stated in a vague manner that they “have made no claims of product which can cure all kinds of joint problems”. On the complaint regarding the advertiser’s claim of “that their phytomedicines used in the treatment of joint problems are USA patented & certified by USDA Organic”; and as to how does this in any way authenticate the use of OPTM’s phytomedicines to be used in India; and which recognized health body in India has endorsed OPTM’s phytomedicines to be utilised for treatment purpose, the advertiser has stated that ”they had only mentioned that their formulations are enriched with USA patented and USDA organic certified ingredients”. The CCC carefully examined the advertisement, the complaint, the response of the advertiser together with the opinion of the expert on the same, and concluded that, considering the description in the advertisement together with the photograph therein, and the contradictions between many of the mentions in the advertisement and the explanation given by the advertiser, opined that the advertisement was definitely misleading. The CCC further opined that several references to ‘scientific outcome’, ‘inventions’ and ‘Nobel prize winner’ were not relevant and were misleading by implication. The CCC observed that the most intriguing statement made by the advertiser was about the product claim of being a “phytomedicine” in the explanation provided, in which the advertiser had stated, “All our products are enrolled by Drug Controller of India a copy of the same is attached with the mail”; whereas it was seen that the product license is under Director of ISM (Indian system of medicine) which is clearly contradictory. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the various claims of the advertiser made in their advertisement were not substantiated by any reliable data, and that the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertisement had contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Hamdard Laboratories (India)"
PRODUCT:"Hamdard Safi"

COMPLAINT:

“Hamdard Safi A natural blood purifier”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Hamdard safi claims to purify the blood http://www.hamdard.in/product/safi There is no standard of pure blood in the world Without there being a standard of pure blood how can anybody claim to purify the blood. The objection is in respect of cleaning the blood. I am giving the requisite details as under - http://www.amazon.in/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=hamdard+safi+blood+purifier&tag=googinhydr1-21&index=aps&hvadid=183174536799&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17707780306596972780&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=20456&hvtargid=kwd-305078532182&ref=pd_sl_8qn0760d1j_e http://mall.coimbatore.com/bnh/misc/safi.html http://www.makeupreviewshall.com/2012/05/saafi-blood-purifier-review.html"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser stated in their response that Blood purification is an important component of Unani System of Medicine, recognized by WHO & Ministry of AYUSH. They stated that Safi is a compound formulation based on the principles of Unani system of medicines which is an important component of AYUSH. Further out of the 28 ingredients in SAFI 12 ingredients are known to have properties of Blood purification (Musaffi Dam). The advertiser submitted relevant Papers & Research Journals supporting the facts as stated above. The CCC carefully viewed the advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser together with the opinion of the expert in the matter. The CCC opined that the concept of “Blood as an important constituent of life is extensively explained in the Unani system of medicine, and approved by authorities. In view of the above, upon careful consideration, the CCC did not consider the use of terminology “Natural blood purifier” to be objectionable. This part of the complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD. The CCC however considered the claim in the advertisement relating to “giving your liver, thyroid, and … the support they need...”, and the response of the advertiser in this regard together with the expert’s opinion and concluded that the specific claims in the advertisement relating the efficacy of the product in respect of liver and thyroid functioning were not adequately validated with clinical data. The CCC noted that the advertiser states that the product description as well as information given or reviews on platforms such as Amazon are not endorsed by Hamdard as there is no prior approval taken by these online sellers from Hamdard. The CCC therefore concluded that this part of the claim in the advertisement is misleading, and contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint in respect of this part of the advertisement was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company"
PRODUCT: "Japani Tel"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Feel the energy, ability and power 2. Specially for men for strength 3. Popular and effective 4. For better results use Japani M Capsule with Japani Tel 5. Zealous (shaukeen) persons can also try and see the results."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims 1-5 needs to be substantiated with data from independent scientific studies. 2. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 3. Has the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 4. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 5. How long does the effect lasts? What conditions are required for this? 6. Is the treatment safe for all patients? Does one require to take it under doctor supervision? 7. What is the dosage of this product? 8. What are the adverse effects of the products? According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code and the provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in Gujarathi, as translated in English, “Feel the energy, ability and power”, “Specially for men for strength”, “Popular and effective” and “For better results use Japani M Capsule with Japani Tel”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. In absence of any claim support data, the CCC considered the claim, “Zealous (shaukeen) persons can also try and see the results”, to be misleading by ambiguity and implication that this product could enhance sexual pleasure. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 I.4 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Jubilant Food Works Limited (Dominos Pizza)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“This is to bring in your notice that Dominos India pizza is selling Gift Vouchers of various denominations. However, once you purchase the same, you cannot utilise it on the prevailing offer. It can only be used on the actual price of the item. There is no description on this and no terms and conditions mentioned in the website on the usage policy with this absurd condition. Can you please do something on this. These are the screenshots. There is nothing in brief also on what are the terms and conditions. Also, I did contacted them before buying the evoucher but they did not said anything on this. The first screenahot mention the evoucher available and if you click on Try Now option it will lead you to the 2nd and 3rd page where all the details needs to be filled. Its in their own website. I have taken the screenshots on my Mobile in the past when first reported this. However, till today also, they have not mentioned anything regarding the policies and rules and regulations. Please find the attachment. 1st screenshot gives you the option to buy e voucher or Physical vouchers, when you will click on E vouchers, it will load up screenshot number 2, in screenshot 2, then you need to fill in the details and then you can send the voucher by giving your card details”."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the terms & conditions before buying the e-voucher were conspicuously depicted with the link in the web-page in which the above offer was made; without accepting which, the person could not move ahead with the transaction. Further, after the completion of the purchase and when the voucher code is sent to the customer, the voucher-code too contains a link for the terms of use at the redemption stage as well the terms of use being clearly depicted with the link. The advertiser further stated that before using the voucher, a person has to mandatorily check in the box accepting the terms and conditions along with a link showing the same. Lastly, under the said terms of use, before buying and before redeeming the voucher it was clearly mentioned that the voucher could not be clubbed with any existing offer. The advertiser stated that for the above reasons, the complaint was not maintainable. The CCC carefully examined the complaint and the response of the advertiser. In view of the fact that the existence of the terms and conditions related to the offer as well as their mandatory acceptance by the buyer prior to the act of buying were established by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that there was no reasonable basis for the complaint. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"N.V.K.Mohamed Sultan Rowther & Sons"
PRODUCT:"Roja Pakku"

COMPLAINT:

"ROJA PAKKU .You tube AD Not Available. Shown in all TV Channels like SUN TV, Z Tamil,etc The voice over in this AD is School Girl and also showing her to encourage taking Betal NUTS"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but requested for a copy of complaint to enable submit their written response. In response to this request, the advertiser was once again provided with full details of the complaint, and was granted an extension of further three days to respond to the complaint. No response was received from the advertiser prior to the extended due date. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the visuals of children/young teenagers promoting pakku (areca nuts) shows an unsafe practice, which is likely to encourage minors to consume the product which could cause harm to them. Also, the TVC is misleading by omission of a cautionary message/warning. The TVC contravened Chapters I.4, III.2 (b) and III.3 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Pioma Industries Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Rasna"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Made in Gujarat, loved by the world 2. World’s largest selling instant drink concentrate 3. India’s most trusted family owned brand"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claims 1-3 need to be substantiated with independent study reports. 2. Tall claims made by the company needs to be substantiated by independent studies According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.Action we propose ? This advt should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the complaint is misguided and whatever claims they had made on the said pamphlet are fully substantiated, and that they wish to go ahead with Informal Resolution of Complaints Procedure and requested for details of the same. It was however noticed that the advertiser failed to take the matter forward for informal resolution, nor did they submit any evidence in support of their claims such as product manufacturing location details, World-wide consumer base, Market share data and any consumer research data. The CCC carefully viewed the advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, and opined that the advertiser had failed to substantiate their claims made in the advertisement, i.e.: that firstly, their product was made in Gujarat, and loved by the world; secondly, that their product was the world’s largest selling instant drink concentrate; and thirdly, that their product was India’s most trusted family owned brand, with any assessment and certification by independent market research organizations. The CCC therefore concluded that the claims in the advertisement were misleading by exaggeration, and had contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Apollo Heart Inst"

COMPLAINT:

"We have the world’s largest solid organ transplant programme"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was examined by the CCC on the basis of the material available and an exparte decision taken. On receiving the CCC Recommendation, the advertiser informed via telecon with the ASCI Secretariat that they had not received ASCI’s earlier communication requesting for their comments on the complaint, and hence would require re-examination of the CCC recommendation. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their response. The CCC carefully considered the material furnished by the advertiser in their request for re-examination, and opined that the comparative data (for the category of surgeries claimed in the advertisement, i.e., solid organ transplants) submitted by the advertiser were limited to various cities/states of the United States of America, based on which the advertiser had made a claim of their hospital having the “World’s largest solid organ transplant programme”. The CCC further opined that given the fact that the comparative data were only those of the cities or States of the USA, and did not represent a reasonable representative world-wide sample, the advertiser’s claim in their advertisement, of being the “World’s largest solid organ transplant programme”, is not adequately supported. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The CCC accordingly concluded that the complaint is UPHELD in re-examination."

 

COMPANY:"Visual Eyes Specs World Technologies Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Visual Eyes Lens"

COMPLAINT:

"Twitter contest saying the person with maximum likes wins. The condition clearly state this. The winner does not seem to have any twitter handle. Because the brand has not tagged any Handle. The condition clearly say it's a twitter contest. And maximum likes win. I have maximum likes” Link: https://twitter.com/Suruchi0603/status/854596089361702912"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the twitter advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and the evidence provided by the complainant (URL and screenshot of the twitter post #BackToSchool, showing more likes received by the complainant that the announced winner), and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the twitter advertisement – contest is misleading as the terms of the contest were not met with. The twitter advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Tata Sky Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“My offer. Know your exclusive offer. Call toll free number 18002081500. I have been receiving mail about my offer and advertisement on TV, but while calling on the same number, automated system receives call and greet with my offer and connects to executive, but they say there is no offer is available. It happened to me twice and I have been denied the offer. So if there is no such offer available, so why I am getting mails and advertisement on TV. Tatasky is a leading brand and I am amazed to see why Tatasky is misleading its own customers. Tatasky is advertising advertisement on their network and sending mails about My Offer. Asking customers to call on 18002081500 to know your exclusive offer. Tatasky is running bogus advertisement and sending mail with false commitments about my offer. I have called twice on the number as advertised by Tata sky and in both the times, they have denied having any offer. If you see the advertisement, it is intended to inform all its customers that there is special offer designed exclusive for you and call on this number to know yours. Tata sky is playing with emotions and using false commitment to gain brand value. As per your request, please find the link to watch the advertisement, Mail Snap and twitter complaint to Tata sky for your reference please.” https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4N08AvL6VvtRDl2ekNYLS13MWc https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4N08AvL6VvtT3QweERtYWZFZWc"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that every subscriber of Tata Sky is entitled to various offers under the ‘My Offer’ promotion activity precisely as per the procedure mentioned in the Advertisements; and that Tata Sky is not making any false commitments to their subscribers and therefore it would be incorrect to construe that their advertisements are misleading. They further stated that more that 22,000 subscribers have availed their offers as on June 26, 2017 by calling the number mentioned in the Advertisement. The CCC thereupon referred to the website of the advertiser, and found that different offers exist against the advertisement. The CCC further noted that the advertiser had resolved the complainant’s grievance to his satisfaction. In the view of the above, the complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vision IAS"
PRODUCT:"Vision IAS Classroom"

COMPLAINT:

"“I was asked by my relatives to suggest a good institute for my cousin and I began my enquiries for the same. However, when I came across an advertisement in the morning, dated 02/6/2017 in The Indian Express newspaper, New Delhi edition on the front page of the newspaper. The advertisement by 'Vision IAS classroom' coaching centre for the Civil Services exam, is highly misleading as the advertisement conveys that the rankers in the Civil Services Exam 2016 had undergone training in their classroom programme, which is conveyed on top of the advertisement along with the name of the coaching institute: Vision IAS Classroom and right through the advertisement- Foundation course and Alternative classroom programme. It is highly evident that this advertisement endorses the top rankers were part of the classroom programme which is deviously misguiding. Besides, Vision IAS classroom also claims 15 ranks in top 20 and 70+ ranks out of top 100 successful candidates in the Civil Services Exam 2016, which I believe is far-fetched and doubtful. Any student like myself on seeing the advertisement would be induced to believe that the top rank holders in the Civil Services Exam 2016 had undergone training in their Classroom Programme, Foundation Course and Alternative Classroom Programme. The advertisement conveys a false representation to the effect that the rank holders were imparted the requisite training/guidance from 'Vision IAS classroom'. In the absence of any mechanism to check the veracity of their claims, such misleading advertisements put the careers of many aspiring students at peril. Any student joining an institute with unknown credentials, risks wasting precious time and money to pursue their courses with no certainty about what exactly to expect from the institute. I request the advertising council to clarify; 1) The nature of coaching taken by the rankers, esp. if they were part of the classroom programme as mentioned in the advertisement and 2) Top ranks claim made by Vision IAS Classroom, to avoid any misrepresentation and confusion to future students.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser in their response asserted that all selections claimed in their advertisements, are from their various coaching programs including test series, classroom courses, distance learning programs and interview guidance programs. They further added that nowhere in their advertisements had they mentioned that said selections are from classroom courses only and that they have no control on the subjective impressions and perceptions which depend on viewers’ own interpretation. They added that they had removed “classroom” from the heading of the advertisements, to make sure that people don’t get false impression. The CCC carefully examined the advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser. The CCC observed that the advertisement’s title read: “VISION IAS CLASSROOM”, followed by the photographs of six individuals with a line above the photographs reading “OUR CSE 2016 RESULT”, and the line “15 in top 20 / 70+ in top 100” immediately below the photographs. Though the advertisement mentions in the lower half, close to the bottom, “LIVE/ONLINE CLASSES AVAILABLE”, and “ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM PROGRAMME”, it is abundantly clear that the advertisement was seeking to primarily claim that their “CLASSROOM” coaching had got success for 15 out of top 20, and 70+ out of the top 100 candidates who were successful in the Civil Services Examination, 2016. Having placed their claims in such a predominant position in their advertisement, the advertiser is making weak efforts to water down their own claims and deny the objections. The advertiser did not provide any support data for the top rank claims (15/20 and 70+/100) and the nature of training undergone by these individuals. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement; and that the said claims were untruthful and misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code and Part 4(a) of the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs (“Advertisement shall not make claims regarding … raking of students passed out … unless they are … substantiated with evidence”). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY: "One 97 Communications limited (PayTM)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Get 50% Cashback* Promocode:MATINEE100 T&C apply. Upto Rs100 cashback Minimum 2 tickets This is a very misleading advert. If it says 50% cashback then that what we should get. The prices of movie tickets are higher than Rs. 200. They should not mislead us by putting a disclaimer and then saying only upto Rs.100 cashback. They should simply say upto Rs. 100 cash back and not fool and try to engage consumers with 50% cashback offer"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser in their response stated that the terms and conditions of the offer were very clearly mentioned in the webpage related to the present offer, without perusing which a person could not have gone to the page that allows them to buy the offered product or coupons. As supporting evidence, the advertiser provided selected details pertaining to few orders and offers of cash back given to their customers. The CCC carefully examined the advertisement-offer on the web, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, and opined that the advertiser’s web link clearly contained the related terms and conditions pertaining to this offer, which makes the complainant’s objection without adequate basis. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertiser had adequately substantiated the claims made by them in their advertisement-web offer. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Dhanuka Group"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

""“Dhanuka realty ltd, jaipur mentions in times of India 10th June, Jaipur addition that 7.5% pre gst savings before 1st July, after which present tax will increase from 4.5% to 12%. It is misleading consumers as presently in service tax and vat no input credit is allowed. While in gst full input credit will be allowed, which will result in less tax or equal tax. For each builder implication could be different. So nobody can claim that their is this amount of additional tax that you will have to pay. It is playing with consumer sentiments.""

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that their advertisement clearly states that project is "Ready Possession. Book Today. Pay before 30th June and get Benefit of 7.5% by paying service tax of 4.5% instead of GST of 12%." Under the GST act, Transition rules and GST rates schedule, rate of GST on real estate is 12%; and input credit of central taxes and SGST (VAT) is allowed only after 01st July 2017 after GST comes into effect. All the construction cost incurred till 30th June is without input tax credits which effectively means that in ready possession flats no input tax credit is available. The CCC carefully viewed the advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, and concluded that the advertisement had not made any incorrect representation on the facts relating to the GST and the subject of ‘credit for input taxes’. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertisement had not violated the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Coco Cola India Inc"
PRODUCT:"Fanta"

COMPLAINT:

“In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. It is a loud and clear message that advertisers are showing disclaimers / other mandatory warning or content only for the sake of complying with some guidelines and just doing lip-service by complying but they are not really complying in the real sense and spirit. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the TV Commercial, the CCC noted that the disclaimers in the TVC were not legible and also not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (English). In the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the TV Commercial had violated part (4) (I) and (4) (VII)(1) of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Coco Cola India Inc"
PRODUCT:"Sprite"

COMPLAINT:

"I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 18.05.2017, at around 00.15 a.m., in the commercial breaks during the movie ""Dagadi Chawl"" being aired on Movies Ok channel, I noticed the advertisement of 'Sprite'. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 18.05.2017, at around 00.15 a.m., in the commercial breaks during the movie ""Dagadi Chawl"" being aired on Movies Ok channel, I noticed the advertisement of 'Sprite'. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information / text on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response as stated above. The advertiser had in their response stated that the height of the disclaimer as telecast along with the Advertisement is 13 pixels. The CCC recommended an independent verification as the disclaimers were not legible when the TVC was reviewed. The independent verification indicated that the heights of the picture area was 395 in 578 lines for SD and 994 in 1090 for HD. The lowercase elements were measured to be of height of about 5 pixels or less for SD and 10 pixels or less for HD formats. Upon viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, and based on independent verification, the CCC concluded that the font size of the disclaimers in the TVC measures to be about 5 pixels, and hence the TVC violated Clause VII.i.2 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers ("For high definition images, the height of the text lower case elements shall be NOT LESS THAN 18 pixels [18 lines] in a 1080 line raster."). The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Coco Cola India Inc"
PRODUCT:"Thums Up"

COMPLAINT:

"“I would like to bring to your notice an advertisement noticed on television, which apparently violates the ASCI code and does not appear to be entirely honest in their manner of communication. On 11.05.2017, at around 9.50 p.m., in the commercial breaks during the serial ""Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise bhi"" being aired on Sony TV channel, I noticed the advertisement of the Thums Up drink. In that ad, there is some disclaimer / written information on the screen but in very small font, illegible and unreadable. Apparently, the small fonts are deliberate and I would presume there is an intent to conceal something. Also the disclaimers were in white, when the background of the scenes in the advertisement were mostly white. That further camouflages the written content, making it all the more unreadable. It is a loud and clear message that advertisers are showing either disclaimers / other mandatory warning or content only for the sake of complying with some guidelines, but they are not really complying in the real sense and spirit. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. Upon viewing the TV Commercial, the CCC noted that the disclaimers in the TVC were not legible. In the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the TV Commercial had violated part (4) (VII)(1) of the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Multani Rhumed SG Tablets"

COMPLAINT:

"The claim is made in the advertisement is that “Multani Rheumed S G Tablet is Govt.of India’s Invention To get Rid of Joint Pain” I understand that you are the authorized regulator, authorized to monitor the advertisement and allow only the ones that are permissible as per law of land You are requested to verify the facts as to how Multani is claiming invention of “Govt of India” to get rid of Joint Pain” is claiming in all ages and misleading general public by publishing such advertisement claiming magical cure for Joint Pain, whereas it is known fact that aged people, senior citizens, cannot get cured as claim in the advertisement.” A copy of advertisement is enclosed herewith and looking forward to your taking appropriate measures to stop misleading elderly and suffering people."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but sought guidance over telecons and submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response that in respect of their claim that their product is an invention of the Government of India, the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India had developed the product after intensive human clinical trials; and the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) had licensed this formulation to the advertiser who was permitted to sell the product under the Trade Mark, ‘RHUMED SG’. The CCC viewed the advertisement, the complaint, and the response of the advertiser, and opined that the agreement entered into by the advertiser with the NRDC mandates that “The Licensee shall at its own cost affix a label or plate or inscribed in a conspicuous manner upon every article, box or packet containing the article, its components and spares, the legend or inscription “KNOWHOW developed by CCRAS, New Delhi and licensed by NRDC” and similarly, every advertisement, publicity material/ customer literature/hoardings etc. in respect of the ARTICLE shall include the same legend in bold letters as aforesaid at a conspicuous place in such advertisements /publicity material/ customer literature /hoardings, etc.. Whereas the advertiser had on their own were using a claim “Invention of CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India”. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertiser had exceeded the agreement that they had entered with the NRDC. The advertiser did not provide any substantiation for the claim “get rid of pain”, and therefore, this claim was untruthful and misleading by exaggeration. The CCC concluded that the advertisement contravened the provisions of Chapters 1.1, I.3 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"OPTM Health Care (P) Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint no: 1 I am referring to an advertisement of OPTM appeared in The Telegraph, Kolkata on 21st May, 2017.In this advertisement they have pointwise narrated to explain why OPTM is Indias best and most scientifically advanced clinic for Joint care. 1. In the 3rd point they mentioned that unlike cheap and contaminated Ayurvedic formula, OPTMs phytomedicine uses USA patented and clinically tested ingredients. I, being an Ayurvedic doctor myself and lecturer at a reputed medical college, find the above statement highly contradictory and demeaning Indian Standard of Ayurvedic Medicines. Here OPTM says that Ayurvedic formulae available in India are cheap and there is no guarantee of the quality of these medicines. Do they mean that Ayurvedic medicines prescribed by doctors are not approved by Drug Control of India which ensures the quality of the ingredients in the medicines? Secondly how come then OPTM is using their phytomedicine in India without getting approval from Govt. of India? 2. My second question is how OPTM can claim that their clinic is the best. They have mentioned in the 2nd point of their Advertisement that AYUSH Minister awarded them for outstanding research done on pain and their phytomedicine. But this does not certify them to be the best in pain management field and. If he is really a scientist then ask him to provide the proof, I am sure he will not be able to submit the relevant documents, because the fact is that Mr. Apurbo Ganguly is simply a quack and nothing else. If you enquire will find the truth. Above matter is being brought to your kind notice so that common people does not mislead with such absurd statements appearing in the print media. Complaint no: 2 OPTM in their ads give no importance at all to diagnostic imaging procedures like X-Ray, MRI, CT Scan, etc. But at the same time, display X-Ray images of joints in their ads from online to substantiate as a form of evidence for their supposedly successful treatment methodology. OPTM profess about using some kind of equipment as part of their treatment methodology to address joint problems. But there is no explanation or description given by OPTM regarding the mentioned equipment. OPTM blatantly brings disrepute to the system of Ayurveda by stating that it is ineffective in treating diseases. To support this, OPTM refers to a dubious research according to which only 7-9% of the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicines reaches the body. There is no clarity from OPTM about the authenticity of the said research. OPTM is talking about the research of 30 years. But he doesnt mention the research work done by them. They not even mentioned the name of researcher. OPTM is claiming that they are the countrys best and most scientifically advanced clinic for joint care. But who has given the authority to them for this self-claiming.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections of the complainant and forwarded the full details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. In respect of the objections to the claims in the advertisement that “unlike cheap and contaminated Ayurvedic formula, OPTMs phytomedicine uses USA patented and clinically tested ingredients; ….the above statement highly contradictory and demeaning Indian Standard of Ayurvedic Medicines; OPTM says that Ayurvedic formulae available in India are cheap and there is no guarantee of the quality of these medicines. Do they mean that Ayurvedic medicines prescribed by doctors are not approved by Drug Control of India which ensures the quality of the ingredients in the medicines; … how come then OPTM is using their phytomedicine in India without getting approval from Govt. of India”, the advertiser stated in their response that they tried to convey to consumers to avoid a few ayurvedic products which are cheap and contaminated; that in the recent past many branded Ayurvedic medicine/natural juices have come under the lime light because of their bad quality containing high amount of lead, mercury, and arsenic; that according to international scientists, cheap and new brands of Ayurvedic medicines/therapies have high content of toxic elements and have no clinical studies to back up their claim; that the approval of any formula by the AYUSH department does not guarantee quality or efficacy, and that there are Ayurvedic products/services being advertised which promises the moon without any clinical studies. In respect of the objections to the claims in the advertisement, regarding “how OPTM can claim that their clinic is the best; they have mentioned in their Advertisement that AYUSH Minister awarded them for outstanding research done on pain and their phytomedicine. But this does not certify them to be the best in pain management field… the fact is that Mr. Apurbo Ganguly is simply a quack and nothing else”, the advertiser stated that they are awaiting a report to make necessary claims; and that they would not publish the claim till the time it is validated. In respect of objections to the claims in the advertisement that “OPTM in their ads give no importance at all to diagnostic imaging procedures like X-Ray, MRI, CT Scan, etc. But at the same time, display X-Ray images of joints in their ads from online to substantiate as a form of evidence for their supposedly successful treatment methodology. OPTM profess about using some kind of equipment as part of their treatment methodology to address joint problems. But there is no explanation or description given by OPTM regarding the mentioned equipment. OPTM blatantly brings disrepute to the system of Ayurveda by stating that it is ineffective in treating diseases”, the advertiser stated in their response that their unique pain diagnosis procedure consists of ‘before and after’ anatomical, biochemical & radiological reports without which they don’t administer their treatment protocol; and that there are no other organization in India which tests these parameters before and after the treatment. In respect of the objection regarding “OPTM refers to a dubious research according to which only 7-9% of the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicines reaches the body. There is no clarity from OPTM about the authenticity of the said research”, the CCC carefully examined the advertisement, and it was seen that the above claim was nowhere mentioned in the advertisement. The CCC therefore opined that there was no basis for this objection. In respect of the objections to the claims in the advertisement that “OPTM is talking about the research of 30 years. But he doesn’t mention the research work done by them. They not even mentioned the name of researcher. OPTM is claiming that they are the country’s best and most scientifically advanced clinic for joint care. But who has given the authority to them for this self-claiming”, the advertiser stated that though OPTM Health Care is a 7-year-old Institute, they had mentioned “about 30 years of research work done by our CSO (Chief Scientific Officer)” in their advertisements, which is completely their choice, to mention the name of the researchers or research work done by them in their advertisement. The CCC carefully examined the advertisement, the complaints, and the response of the advertiser, and opined that in respect of the objections to the claims relating to “cheap and contaminated Ayurvedic formula, OPTM’s phytomedicine uses USA patented and clinically tested ingredients”, etc., the advertiser has made only assertions and was not able to provide any credible evidence to prove that “cheap and new brands of Ayurvedic medicines are unsafe or inefficient”, etc. These sweeping statements, according to CCC, denigrated the entire class of Ayurvedic medicine and its practitioners, and contravened the provisions of Chapter IV.1(e) of the ASCI Code (“advertisement does not unfairly denigrate, attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication”). The CCC further observed that the advertiser’s claim of being “India’s best and most scientifically advanced clinic for Joint care” was not substantiated by the advertiser with any comparative data of other clinics in the country in this area of medical specialization; nor was any independent assessment or certification provided for their claim of being “India’s best and most scientifically advanced”. The CCC therefore concluded that the advertiser’s claim was misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration, and contravened the provisions of Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The CCC further observed in respect of the objections to advertiser’s “display X-Ray images of joints in their ads … to substantiate as a form of evidence for their supposedly successful treatment methodology”, that the advertiser had not provided any substantive information or data, other than making bland assertions that “their unique pain diagnosis procedure consists of ‘before and after’ anatomical, biochemical & radiological reports without which they don’t administer their treatment protocol; and that there are no other organization in India which tests these parameters before and after the treatment”. The advertiser had not produced any scientific clinical data in support of their claim, nor produced any independent third party certification of the same. The CCC therefore concluded that the above claim related to “display of X-Ray images of joints in their ads” by the advertiser was entirely unsubstantiated and untruthful, and contravened the provisions of Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The CCC further observed in respect of the objection to the claim, “Awarded by AYUSH minister for outstanding research done on pain and phytomedicine in the last 30 years”, that there was no scientific evidence submitted to substantiate the advertiser’s assertion about the 30 years of research work done by their CSO (Chief Scientific Officer). The CCC noted that the advertiser claimed that “is completely their choice to mention the name of the researchers or research work done by them in the advertisement”. Based on this response and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the said claim is not substantiated with supporting evidence and is therefore misleading by gross exaggeration. In view of the above, the CCC concluded that the advertiser had failed to substantiate any of the objected claims they had made in their advertisement, and thereby contravened the provisions of the Chapters I.1, I.4 and IV.1 (e) of the ASCI Code. The complaints were accordingly UPHELD." "

 

COMPANY: "Dr Malik Ayurvedic Research Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to cure diseases like stone, piles, sexual problems in just 7 days. Also claims to give definite results for all stomach related diseases"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Venereal diseases including syphilis, gonorrhea, soft chancre, venereal granuloma and lymphogranuloma- Item no. 54- DMR Act."

 

COMPANY:"Kangra Herb Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Kangra Herb Health Centre"

COMPLAINT:

"Claims that for any kind of heart problems, high blood pressure, coronary artery blockage, , angina like problems has an overwhelming treatment without any operation and cures heart diseases from its roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""High Blood Pressure Item No.27- DMR Schedule Item No.25- Schedule J Heart Diseases Item No.26- DMR Schedule""

 

COMPANY: "Shree Maruti Herbal-"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Power Capsules"

COMPLAINT:

"1. “Weakness, lack of strength, tiredness, lack of energy, early aging” 2. “For energy, vigour and strength stay on power capsule for men” Complaint: Our objections: 1. Claims 1-2 needs to be substantiated with data from independent scientific studies. 2. How does the product claim to give energy, vigour and strength? 3. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 4. Has the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 5. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 6. How long does the effect lasts? What conditions are required for this? 7. What are the side effects of this capsule? 8. Is the treatment safe for all patients? Does one require to take it under doctor’s supervision? 9. What is the dosage of this product?"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure Item no 36-Schedule J""

 

COMPANY: ""Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd""
PRODUCT:"Pirrhoid"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Hemorrhoids? 2. Results shown from first day 3. Proven for Piles"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our objections: 1. Claim 1 and 3 should be substantiated with independent research data and certified by competent authority. 2. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 3. Have the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 4. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 5. How long does the effect lasts? What conditions are required for this? 6. Is the treatment safe for all patients? Does one require taking it under doctor’s supervision? 7. How long can one take this product? 8. What happens when one stops using this product?"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Piles and Fistulae Item no 42 -Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Care and Cure Herbals"
PRODUCT:"Shots Capsules and Gel"

COMPLAINT:

"1)Unmatched energy booster. 2)Only for men. 3)The visual on the product packaging read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J""

 

COMPANY: "ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD"
PRODUCT:"Phytorelief-CC"

COMPLAINT:

“70% reduction in the frequency of Cold N Flu episodes”, “83% reduction in bacterial count within 3 days”, “The PhtoAdvance technology uses an advanced process to extract plant actives that are high on bioavailability and thus more effective than usual plant based medicines”, “Phytomedicine Gen3 is the latest generation of phytomedicine, which have undergone international clinical studies. These published clinical studies conclusively establish their effectiveness across a range of ailments”, “The effective Clinically proven defense against Flu & Cold virus”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The advertisement of PhytoRelief – CC is making following claims to promote its drug: 1. 70% reduction in the frequency of Cold N Flu episodes 2. 83% reduction in bacterial count within 3 days. 3. The PhtoAdvance technology uses an advanced process to extract plant actives that are high on bioavailability and thus more effective than usual plant based medicines. 4. Phytomedicine Gen3 is the latest generation of phytomedicine, which have undergone international clinical studies. These clinical studies conclusively establish their effectiveness across a range of ailments. 5. The effective Clinically proven defense against Flu & Cold virus. The said advertisement mentions that the claims contained therein are being made by Alchem basis a published study. Upon going through the abstract of said study which is available in the public domain, we surprisingly observed that it just states that “this preliminary study shows that Phyto Relief CC may help the evolution of cold if used early, when initial symptoms could be identified. More specific evaluation and larger prevention studies are needed.” It can accordingly be seen that the company is making such tall claims based on a preliminary study in small number of patients and generalizing the study outcome to larger population, thereby misleading the viewers and patients into believing that there has been a conclusive study which has substantiated all claims being made in the said advertisement. The said Advertisement wrongly claims that “these clinical studies conclusively establishes their effectiveness across a range of ailments…..”, whereas a plain reading of the study abstract clearly reveals that the authors of said study have clarified that more specific evaluation and larger prevention studies are needed. Further, the company is claiming in the said advertisement that its product “has high bioavailability and thus more effective than usual plant based medicines”, which finds no mention in the published study referred to in the company’s advertisement. We would urge that the Company should be advised to provide suitable evidence to support this statement. It is very evident from the manner in which the company has made claims in the impugned advtt. that the company is misleading the patients/consumers of the benefits of the drug being promoted therein and is also hiding some important facts from consumers which are very relevant for the consumers to make an informed decision whether to buy this drug for the promoted indications or not.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The application for IRP, and the claim support data submitted along with it, were carefully perused. The explanations offered by the advertiser during the IRP were also carefully examined. The claim support data submitted by the advertiser indicates that it is only a “preliminary” study - the references quoted have a mention “In conclusion, this preliminary study shows that PhytoRelief CC may help in the evolution of cold if used early, when initial symptoms could be identified. More specific evaluations and larger prevention studies are needed”. Whereas, the wording of claims made in the advertisement denotes definitive benefits and product efficacy – viz. (i) “70% reduction in frequency of cold and flu episodes”; (ii) “83% reduction in bacterial count in three days”; (iii) “The PhytoAdvance technology uses an advanced process to extract plant actives that are high on bioavailability and thus more effective than usual plant based medicines”; (iv) “(Phytomedicine Gen3 is the latest generation of phytomedicine, which have undergone international clinical studies.) These published clinical studies conclusively establish their effectiveness across a range of ailments”; and, (v) ""Effective, clinically proven defense against Flu and cold viruses"". In our view the claims are not adequately substantiated with robust, large scale clinical studies and with more specific evaluations among statistically significant sample size. If the advertiser in the advertisements states that preliminary studies show the above mentioned points, then it may carry out the advertisement. Considering the fact that the advertiser agreed to make appropriate changes in the claims in the advertisement and to add corresponding disclaimers in consonance with the claim support data available, this matter is accordingly disposed of.""

 

COMPANY: "HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD "
PRODUCT:"Ayurvedic Anti-Dandruff Ayush Shampoo"

COMPLAINT:

"The Advertiser had, in order to promote its new Ayurvedic Anti-Dandruff Ayush Shampoo, made and broadcast a TVC with a leading Tollywood actor (Siddharth). The VO (""Impugned Statement"") in the TVC calls out that: ""The bigger problem of hair is dandruff and a bigger fear is using a dandruff shampoo, because it leads to Hairfall"". It was complained that the Advertiser through the TVC was misleading the consumers by making incomplete, incorrect, misleading and untrue statements, as follows: (a) Incomplete (The bigger problem of hair is dandruff) - Does not state the comparison against which other problem is dandruff a bigger problem; (b) Misleading and incorrect (bigger fear is using a dandruff shampoo, because it leads to Hair fall) - no basis to state why people fear using a dandruff shampoo and why does it lead to hair fall; (c) Untrue (became it leads to Hair fall) - Based on technical literature and scientific tests, it had been proven that anti-dandruff shampoos improve the quality of hair and aid in reduction of hair fall. Moreover, people suffering from dandruff problem have to resort to specialized dandruff shampoos as ordinary shampoos are ineffective in aiding in dandruff reduction. Therefore, by making such statements the Advertiser was misleading the consumers and dissuading them from using Anti-Dandruff shampoos. Moreover, the Advertiser had used a famous celebrity to convey its message and the actor's expressions exhibit a dilemma, fear and reluctance in using the existing Anti Dandruff shampoos, which has been done on purpose to discourage consumers from using the existing Anti Dandruff shampoos. Since actors are social icons, the public at large tend to follow them. It is on account of their tremendous popularity and influence that famous actors and actress are selected as brand ambassador. If consumers see a famous actor telling them that using existing Anti Dandruff shampoos will cause hairfall they will tend to believe it and thereby hurt and disparage/ denigrate the reputation of anti- dandruff shampoos prevalent in the market."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The essence of the advertiser’s case was that the advertisement expressed merely an apprehension and did not seek to represent the actual technical facts. In fact during the discussion the representatives of the advertiser clearly stated that there was a difference between the consumer apprehensions and the technical data. During the course of hearing the advertiser agreed to include a disclaimer to the advertisement in question, that “technical data shows that anti dandruff shampoos do not necessarily cause hair loss”. In our view once such a statement is included in the advertisement, the essence of the complaint which is founded on implication of the advertisement that anti dandruff shampoos causes hair loss is allayed. We conclude that if such a disclaimer is added, the advertisement may be aired. In this view of this matter it is not necessary to question the correctness or otherwise of the recommendation of the FTCP.""

 

COMPANY: "TIMES NETWORK LTD"
PRODUCT:"Times Now"

COMPLAINT:

"The Ruling No. 1"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"BARC Guidelines do not permit the advertiser to show relative shares of competitors. Also, the style of graphical representation used is not permitted under the Guidelines."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The application for IRP, and the claim support data submitted by the advertiser as well as opinion of the Technical expert on the step by step screenshots furnished by the advertiser, were perused. The IRP Chairman noted that what can be published are the direct outputs of BMW, and not excel based calculations/extrapolations of the BMW output. The expert opinion was also noted to the effect that Market Share is permitted as per the first guidelines for non-Single day events but this is not a direct BMW output (as there was interpolation of data). While the graphical representation appears to be in line with BARC principles and the figures shown are technically correct, the relative share data shown is itself not a permissible extrapolation and is therefore misleading, and is not compliant with BARC Guidelines. In view of these observations, the earlier Consumer Complaint Council recommendation holds and the IRP application is thus disposed of as the showing of relative share data was due to the interpolation of data which was not in accordance with BARC guidelines."

 
 

 

DID YOU KNOW?