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

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY:"AirAsia India Limited"
PRODUCT:"Air Asia"

COMPLAINT:

"1. World's Airline Winner Skytrax Awards 2016 2. World's Best Low-Cost Airline 8 Years Running."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"On receiving the ASCI’s request for confirmation of compliance for the complaint which was Upheld due to inadequate substantiation of the claim, the Advertiser responded and submitted copy of awards received by them for all the 8 years (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016) wherein they won the World’s Best Low-cost Airline award by Skytrax. The CCC reviewed this data and concluded that the claim, “World's Best Low-Cost Airline 8 Years Running”, was substantiated. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review."

COMPANY:"Manya Education Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"GMAT Coaching"

COMPLAINT:

"Google Ad claims a) India's No.1 in GMAT Coaching b) India's largest GMAT coaching company c) 700+ score in GMAT assured with TPR Web page linked with the google ad: d) India's largest GMAT preparation that provides you a score improvement guarantee e) Apart from GMAC, We are the only company that gives students true computer adaptive tests f) The only company in India to have the most stringent teacher selection process that is globally recognized g) We are the only company that provides unlimited extra help* to all students and a Unique Satisfaction guarantee."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The website page & Google advertisement is for coaching for GMAT exam Manya Institute claims in its Google advertising: a) India's no.1 GMAT coaching b) India's largest GMAT coaching company c) 700+ score in GMAT assured with TPR Manya Institute also claims in its web page linked with the google ad: d) India's largest GMAT preparation that provides you a score improvement guarantee e) Apart from GMAC, We are the only company that gives students true computer adaptive tests f) The only company in India to have the most stringent teacher selection process that is globally recognized g) We are the only company that provides unlimited extra help* to all students and a Unique Satisfaction guarantee. All the claims by Manya institute on its website & Google are misleading, exaggerated, fake, and are very vague. i) On what parameters and data they are claiming to be “India's no.1 GMAT coaching”, “India's largest GMAT Coaching company” & “700+ score in GMAT assured” ii) The terms used in their advertisement like - the only company, Unique satisfaction guarantee, score improvement guarantee, most stringent teacher selection process, etc. are very ambiguous, completely false and are being used to attract and misguide the students. All of the above claims by Manya group appear to be misleading, vague and fake. I request ASCI to please ask them to immediately stop using these wrong claims if they fail to prove or substantiate these so that innocent aspirants do not fall for these fake claims.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and responded with a request for informal resolution of the complaint, for which they would require 90 days time for removal of the claims made in the Google advertisement. Further they informed that the web page link has been revised and does not contain the claims objected to. As the advertiser did not submit the necessary undertaking, the complaint was taken forward for CCC deliberations. The CCC viewed the Google and the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that - Google Ad claims, “India's No.1 GMAT coaching”, “India's largest GMAT coaching company”, Website Ad claims, “India's largest GMAT preparation that provides you a score improvement guarantee”, “Apart from GMAC, We are the only company that gives students true computer adaptive tests”, “The only company in India to have the most stringent teacher selection process that is globally recognized, “We are the only company that provides unlimited extra help* to all students and a Unique Satisfaction guarantee”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove these claims, Claim, “700+ score in GMAT assured with TPR”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of students who obtained 700+ score in GMAT. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The Google advertisement and the website 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 UPHELD."

COMPANY:"Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"a) India's no.1 coaching institute for GMAT, GRE, SAT and Admission Counselling b) Highest scores since 1993 c) Best results since 1995 d) GMAT: highest number of 700+ scores on GMAT in India e) GRE: highest number of 325+ scores on GRE in India f) SAT: highest number of 1900+ scores on GRE in India g) The most experienced trainers in the industry h) Most Exhaustive Collection of Questions and Mock Tests i) The ONLY Curriculum and Teaching Methodology Customized for Indian Test-takers j) Satisfaction 100% Guaranteed"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The website page / advertisement is for coaching for GRE, GMAT, SAT & Admission Counselling All the claims by Jamboree on its website are misleading, exaggerated, fake, and are very vague. i) On what parameters and data they are claiming to be India's no.1 coaching institute for GMAT, GRE, SAT & admission counselling. ii) The claims: Highest scorers since 1993 is completely false as their website shows that Jamboree was founded in 1995. So how can they have highest scores in 1993 onwards? What is the proof for this claim of highest scores? iii) The terms used in their advertisement like Highest, best, most experienced, most exhaustive, Only, 100% guaranteed, etc. are very ambiguous, completely false and are being used to lure the students. All of the above claims by Jamboree appear to be misleading, vauge and fake. I request ASCI to please ask Jamboree to immediately stop using these wrong claims if they fail to prove these so that genuine and innocent students do not fall for these claims.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response through their Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the Advertiser states that, their client has best faculty and best students so they have claimed that they are the best institution for GMAT, GRE, SAT and admission counseling. They are the oldest institute that impart training for GMAT, GRE, SAT, IELTS and TOEFL exam. There is no other institute as old as they are, and they have pan India presence, hence the number of students taking test from their institute is more than any other institute. The study material has been designed after considering different educational backgrounds of their students and their perspectives. Thus they claim that their curriculum is the only curriculum which has been considered the background of the students and their teaching methodology which is based on the aspirations and expectation of the students. The institute has a huge database of practice questions and mock test which are compiled over the years and are given to the students to practice, for which the Advocate in their response has given the number of students enrolled in 2014-15 and 2015-16 in different courses. The CCC viewed the website advertisements and considered the Advocate’s response. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about the performance of their students and their teaching program and the different courses offered by them, but the advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claims made by them. The CCC concluded that the claims, “India's No.1 coaching institute for GMAT, GRE, SAT and Admission Counselling”, “Highest scores since 1993”, “Best results since 1995”, “GMAT: highest number of 700+ scores on GMAT in India”, “GRE: highest number of 325+ scores on GRE in India”, “SAT: highest number of 1900+ scores on GRE in India”, “The most experienced trainers in the industry”, are superlative claims which were not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove these claims. Claims, “Most Exhaustive Collection of Questions and Mock Tests”, “The ONLY Curriculum and Teaching Methodology Customized for Indian Test-takers”, and “Satisfaction 100% Guaranteed”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration and implication. The website advertisements 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Reliance Communications (Fastest 4G network)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Fastest 4G network"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The ad was an Instagram post and also present on the Reliance Communication's website. The ad mentioned 'Fastest 4G network' in a blue background with skyscraper building drawings I am writing this letter to you to bring to your notice a misleading advertisement that I recently came across. The ad in question over here is by Reliance communication. Recently while browsing through my Instagram feed, I came across a sponsored post by Reliance communication (not Reliance Jio). The ad in question got my attention because it claimed to have the Fastest 4G. Ever since the entire hype around 4G started a year back, only Airtel and Jio come to my mind. Even my friends recommend a Jio or Airtel connection as they have the fastest speeds. But this is the first time that I heard RCom claiming to have the fastest 4G, but this ad had no mention about the speeds, not even a disclaimer about the speed. It is a little unfair that RCom is taking a free ride on Jio expense.This ad also came with the option for a free home delivery. Now if someone like me, who wants to take a 4G connection, will opt for this, and end up getting fooled. Though I noticed this fault, I dont know how many people would get that. I hope this complaint is taken into cognizance and RCom is informed not to mislead people.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint despite a reminder from ASCI. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and the Instagram post. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Fastest 4G Network”, was not substantiated with authentic evidence such as third party certification, and is misleading by exaggeration. The website advertisement and the Instagram Post contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Amazon India"
PRODUCT:"Woodland Wallet for Men"

COMPLAINT:

“100% Original Products”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"At one side, the amazon claims that they sell ONLY ORIGINAL PRODUCTS to the consumer and on the other side it has been proved that the amazon is selling FAKE and DUPLICATE PRODUCTS to the consumers at large Link of their Advertisement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5tc1M9zH5Y I purchased some products from amazon.in and made an online payment to them, Copy of the order and confirmation from the woodland is enclosed. I have filed a complaint before Ministry of Consumer Affairs and sent mail to GAMA also. RTI, filed and receive reply that I may file complaint to ASCI. After receiving the products it came to my knowledge that with the conspiracy of some seller, amazon, is selling fake products to the innocent consumers. They are using the trademark of woodland and in the name of woodland they are selling fake and duplicate products. Woodland has given written confirmation that the delivered products are duplicate. Immediate action is required and they may be penalized."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser (Amazon Sellers P. Ltd) was granted an extension of six days to the standard lead time of five days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. Amazon did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement and considered Amazon’s response. Amazon argues that the advertisement demonstrates that in the segment where the caption “100% Original Products” is displayed, the same also bears a disclaimer to the effect that Terms and Conditions apply. Amazon works as a marketplace model where independent sellers can list and advertise their products to customers and it has a robust system in place to prevent unscrupulous sellers from operating through their platform to stay true to their promise of providing 100% original products. Amazon’s advertisement is an assurance to its customers that they shall never have to pay for a non-original product and the advertisement has to be seen in that context. The CCC noted that the complainant provided evidence that the delivered and the listed product is fake. The CCC was of the view that the disclaimer “Terms & Conditions apply” is not relevant and in fact is contradictory to the claim of “100% Original Products”. While Amazon asserts that they have a robust system in place to prevent unscrupulous seller from operating through their platform, in this instance Amazon was not able to ensure that the product is genuine. Based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Original Products” is not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The YouTube advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 2 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer should not attempt to hide material information with respect to the claim, the omission / absence of which is likely to make the advertisement deceptive or conceal its commercial intent”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Fogg Roll On Deodorant"

COMPLAINT:

“Triple protection against sweat, bacteria and odour”, "eliminate 96% bacteria"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“There is a deodorant from the name ""FOGG"" both for men and women in different flavours. The cap of the FOGG Deodorant claims that it has a ""triple protection against sweat, bacteria and adour"". it also claims that it ""eliminate 96% bacteria"" by applying this deodorant. Firstly, my Compliant is in relation to the authenticity of the claim they made on the cap of the product. In what manner or by using what substance in deodorant the FOGG can protect my body from sweat, bacteria and adour. Secondly on what basis they claim that 96% of the bacteria are eliminated from the body by applying the said deodorant. Thirdly upto what time this protection lasts in one's body. I mean if the claim is correct then upto what time its effect remains over the body. Fourthly, is there any government agency who has certify the said protection from the said deodorant. if so? then which agency it is.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of six days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the product contains Silver Citrate, an active ingredient which prevents the formation of body Malodour by fast reduction of bacteria which metabolises human sweat. A study with a Roll On containing Silver Citrate showed more than 99% reduction of Corynebacterium minutissimum within few minutes. The product also contains Aluminum Chlorohydrate which reduces sweat by complexing with sweat. For eliminating of bacteria, the reference of the Advanced Silver Ion Disinfection Technology, 30 ppm Silver Ion 2400TM proved to be 99.9999% effective against the one organisms. The CCC noted that the advertiser has made assertions about their product, but did not submit product sample, composition details of the product, and test reports for the studies mentioned in their response. Also, the advertiser did not explain the terminology of ""Triple protection"" prior to the due date of response. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Triple protection against sweat, bacteria and odour”, and ""eliminate 96% bacteria"", were inadequately substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. The product packaging claims contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Perfect Point"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Perfect Point - Introducing First time in Udaipur Cryolipolysis. 2. Fat Freezing to Permanent Reduction of Fat Cells - No Side Effects. 3. Cavitation Ultra Sound - Fat Eliminator"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. The advertiser did not provide details of the Cryolipolysis treatment procedure for fat reduction. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Fat Freezing to Permanent Reduction of Fat Cells - No Side Effects”, and “Cavitation Ultra Sound - Fat Eliminator”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data. Claim, “Perfect Point - Introducing First time in Udaipur Cryolipolysis”, was not substantiated with supporting proof. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vibes Healthcare Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Vibes Centre"

COMPLAINT:

"Treatment For Hair Re-Growth - Stem Cell Technology (claim is misleading as this indication is not approved in India for Stem Cells)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. The CCC noted that the advertiser did not provide details of the treatment procedure for Hair regrowth through stem cell technology. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Treatment for Hair Re-Growth - Stem Cell Technology”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data. Also, the claim is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vardan Speech & Hear Diag Cent"
PRODUCT:“Rajdhani's No.1 Hearing Centre”

COMPLAINT:

“Rajdhani's No.1 Hearing Centre”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Rajdhani's No.1 Hearing Centre”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data versus other similar clinics in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"M V Shipping Management Services (P) Ltd"
PRODUCT:"(MV Shipping Academy)"

COMPLAINT:

“Job Assured on stamp paper agreement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response post the due date. Advertiser states that they have had various students of Merchant Navy course in previous years. They make agreement on stamp paper for their placements and all of their students have been placed successfully on different ships. As claim support data, the advertiser provided data of five students such as, passport, visa, air ticket, and their letter of agreement. As this response was not exhaustive and inadequate as claim support data, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit additional data for verification, to which no response was received from the advertiser, in time for the CCC meeting. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that the advertiser makes assertions about providing placement for their students on different ships. Also, the data provided was not considered to be authentic or exhaustive. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Job Assured on stamp paper agreement”, was inadequately substantiated with supporting evidence such as detailed list of students for all the batches, their placement details, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate, and is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Medinn Belle Herbal Care Pvt Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Endura Mass"

COMPLAINT:

“Story of Success ‐ I wanted to make my career in the field of modeling! But my lean and skinny body was hampering my path to success. But, I found a new identity with Endura Mass which gave me the right weight, smarter looks and a better personality. So, if you are also underweight, start taking Endura Mass today.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Gain Weight. ‐ Stay Fit.”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that the regular user of the said product, is conducive for gain weight, staying fit and looking great. The product has been analyzed from Food Analysis & Research Laboratory, and the report given by the said Laboratory certifies that the consumers, whose test was submitted had consumed the said product and the persons had gained weight. As claim support data, the advertiser provided appreciation letters of few consumers, analysis report findings, and copy of product licence. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the data provided is only a report of weight gain by consuming the product along with full cream and bananas in different dosage and at different ages. The sample size for each type was only 10 with five being males and five being females. There was no Single or Double Blind Trial to unequivocally prove that Weight Gain was only because of Endura Mass. The weight gain could be potentially only due to the cream and banana intake by the volunteers and contribution of Endura Mass for Weight Gain was not conclusively proven. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the testimonial claim, “….. But, I found a new identity with Endura Mass which gave me the right weight. So, if you are also underweight, start taking Endura Mass today”, and the claim, “Gain Weight. ‐ Stay Fit”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Mead Johnson Nutrition (India) Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Enfagrow A+"

COMPLAINT:

“To help my child’s brain development.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Newspaper ad for ENFAGROW A+ The ad claims to help brain development in children. Brain development depends on multiple factors including training, observation, nutrition, etc. Natural milk contains all the required nutrients."

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that Enfagrow A+ is made from milk powder and has unique blend of nutrients including Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), Choline, Zinc, Iodine, Iron, Vitamin B and other micronutrients that help support brain growth and development. Enfagrow A+ is formulated by taking Dietary Guidelines & RDA as reference to pattern the nutrient intakes for children. Enfagrow A+ provides upto 100 of RDA for these nutrients when consumed as part of balanced diet as per the Dietary Guidelines for Indians specified by National Institute of Nutrition (NIN). As claim support data, the advertiser provided various Journal references on Brain Development and DHA Supplementation, label of the product, and product approval from FSSAI. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Based on the views of the technical expert, the CCC concluded that the claim, “To help my child’s brain development”, was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Unique International "
PRODUCT:"Dr Richas Unique Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

"Complete Solution For Obesity"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Obesity Item No.39- Schedule J Item No.38- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"Kudos Laboratories India Limited"
PRODUCT:"IME-9 Tablets"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint: IME 9 is advertised as an ayurvedic drug which is potent over the diabetes. It is just like any other common television promoted item. IME 9 add is misleading as the advertisement doesn't show which type of diabetes whether type I or II. Also, though it is an ayurvedic origin drug. We should amend the Drugs & Cosmetic laws to include that all types of drugs. Claim: Your diabetes can be controlled. (00:14), (00:18) The voice over states - Your diabetes will be cured completely(00:14)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Diabetes Item no.9- DMR Schedule Item no.14- Schedule J""

 

COMPANY:"Renovision Exports Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Hypower Musli Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1 Use hypower musli oil for more power. 2 The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement 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:"Cenozoic Remedies Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Ceno Gathia Oil/Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"Treatment of Rheumatic, Arthritis from the roots. (Implies cure)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Treatment of Rheumatic, Arthritis from the roots. (Implies cure)"

 

COMPANY:"Charak Ayurvedic Panchkarma Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Treat diseases like sterility, kidney stone, obesity, high blood pressure, piles, fistula, fissure etc through most successful diagnosis method. Claim is Misleading by implication of cure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J High Blood Pressure Item No.27- DMR Schedule Item No.25- Schedule J Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J"

 
 

COMPANY:"Cenozoic Remedies Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Diaba Dops Range Of Products"

COMPLAINT:

"Treat Diabetes from the roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diabetes- Item no. 9- DMR Schedule Item no. 14 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Shubham Homeo Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Treat congenital deafness permanently without operation."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Deafness Item no. 8- DMR Schedule Item no. 13- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Noor Cancer Care "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Treatment of cancer without operation"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Cancer Item No. 6- DMR Schedule Cancer And Benign Tumour Item No. 8- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Ambey clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful treatment of weakness of nerves due to excessive masturbation, lack of sex in growing age, lack of strength in penis, lack of sperm & semen, sex phobia, discharge, nightfall, impotence, small penis, sloppy penis, syphilis, gonorrhoea, sterility."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance Item no. 30- Schedule J Sexual Impotence Item no.45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J Venereal diseases including syphilis, gonorrhea, soft chancre, venereal granuloma and lymphogranuloma- Item no. 54- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "New Model Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to provide successful ayurvedic treatment for sex problems. Also claims to remove weakness and increase strength & vigour. 2 The visual in the Ad 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:"Classical Homeopath"
PRODUCT:"Dr. Shivshankar Meetwar Clinic"

COMPLAINT:

"Permanent treatment of diabetes, thyroid, blood pressure and mental diseases."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diabetes- Item no. 9- DMR Schedule Item no. 14 – Schedule J High/ Low Blood Pressure Item no. 27- DMR Schedule Item no. 25-Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Shree Hari Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Without operation , ayurvedic treatment for sterility in men and women."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "Ganga Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Increase sex hold back time upto 50 minutes. 2 Sure shot ayurvedic treatment for increasing penis length/thickness, sugar, loose organ, thinness, sloppy organ. 3. The visual in the Ad 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 Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance Item no. 30- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Surya Ayurveda Hospital & Yoga Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Guaranteed treatments for asthma, piles, varicose, sugar, etc."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Bronchial Asthma Item No. 7- Schedule J, Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J Vericose Vein Item no. 51- Schedule J Diabetes- Item no. 9- DMR Schedule Item no. 14 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Naik Homoeopathy "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1 Successful Treatment on Kidney Failure / Stone, Heart diseases & Liver failure, Cancer / Mental diseases, Infertility prevention/ Sexual problems, Arthritis / Spondylosis. Skin Diseases / Psoriasis, Allergy / Asthma/ scabies, Depression/ mentally challenged children"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Kidney Stones- Item no. 22- DMR Schedule Item no. 50- Schedule J Heart Diseases Item No.26- DMR Schedule Hepatitis/Liver disorders Item no. 33- Schedule J Cancer and benign tumours- Item no. 8 – Schedule J Cancer Item no. 6-DMR Schedule Diseases and disorder of brain Item no. 10- DMR Schedule Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule Rheumatism Item no. 43- DMR Schedule Spondylitis- Item no. 48- Schedule J Asthma- Item no. 4- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Arogyam Accupuncture & Naturopathy Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Children suffering from Celebral Palsy, Down Syndrome please visit.The only clinic where incurable diseases are treated without medicine."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diseases and disorders of brain – Item no. 10 – DMR Schedule Mental retardation , subnormalities and growth Item no. 37-Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Playwin Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1 Enjoy a happy married life. 2 Helps prevent Premature Ejaculation. 3 The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Playwin Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1 Helps you gain power, stamina, strength and prevents premature ejaculation 2 The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Playwin Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1. The storm of immense vigour that will make your partner enjoy. 2. Helps prevent Premature Ejaculation 3. The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Playwin Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1 Enjoy a happy married life. 2 The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1 Enjoy a happy married life. 2 The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure"

Recommendation: UPHELD

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

 

COMPANY:"Shree Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Oral Liquid"

COMPLAINT:

"1)Weakness, lack of strength,Excitement, Stimulation? 2) The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure 3)The advertisement provides link to website. The web-site promotes the product with reference to “ making love”,”Kamasutra”, boosting libido” “Premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, lack of libido etc are all a distant memory”"

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 Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Oral Liquid"

COMPLAINT:

"1)The visual in the Ad implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure 2)The advertisement provides link to website. The web-site promotes the product with refers to “making love”,”Kamasutra”, boosting libido”"

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 Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Power Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1 Experience of power, every day, every moment! 2) 'Stay-On' which will give you a different experience of youthfulness, Resistance power, pep, vigour, excitement and strength. 3) The advertisement mentions the product web-site. The web-site promotes the product with claims -""….Countless number of people have, rediscovered, the lost joy, back in their interpersonal relationship. Premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, lack of libido etc are all a distant memory 4) The visual in the Ad and packaging read in conjunction with the claims 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 Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Shree Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Power Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1)The unique power capsule effective in rejuvenating, revitalising and boosting energy. 2) The advertisement mentions the product web-site. The web-site promotes the product with claims - ""….Countless number of people have, rediscovered, the lost joy, back in their interpersonal relationship. Premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, lack of libido etc are all a distant memory"" 3 The visual in the Ad and packaging read in conjunction with the claims 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 Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Shree Maruti Herbal"
PRODUCT:"Stay On Power Capsule/ Oil"

COMPLAINT:

"1)For excitement, passion, strength.You will get a feeling of youthfulness, resistance power, pep, excitement, strength and Passion in your body. 2) The advertisement mentions the product web-site. The web-site promotes the product with claims - ""….Countless number of people have, rediscovered, the lost joy, back in their interpersonal relationship. Premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, lack of libido etc are all a distant memory"" 3) The visual in the Ad and packaging read in conjunction with the claims 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 Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Poona Preventive Cardiology Center."
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Say No To Angioplasty & Bypass Surgery 2. Effective Therapy That Can Prevent Angioplasty & Bypass Surgery. 3. Effective In Heart Failure Patients."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Heart Diseases Item No.26- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "Rishabh Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful Treatment Of Childlessness"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility In Women- Item No 48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"34 Heart Care "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1- Freedom from heart diseases, treatment without surgery 2. Survive from future heart attacks."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Heart Diseases Item No.26- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"Oval Healthcare Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Aveya Ivf"

COMPLAINT:

"InFertility : Turning Patients Into Parents"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility In Women- Item No 48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"Chaudhary Piles Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful treatment of piles, fissure, fistula."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

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

 

COMPANY:"Innovative Cure Beauty & Health Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to increase height upto 5cm. 2. The before and after visuals implies treatment for height increment. 3.Breast Enhancement"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Stature of persons Item No.47- DMR Schedule Improvement in height of children/adults Item No. 29- Schedule J Form and structure of the breast Item no. 19- Schedule J Form and structure of the female bust. Item no. 21- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY:"Innovative Joints Rejuvenation Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Avoid joint replacement and regenerate cartilages.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the ASCI’s request for confirmation of compliance, the advertiser sought for a review of the CCC recommendation. Advertiser confirmed that they have discontinued the said advertisement and assured to comply with the CCC review recommendation. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response for Review. Advertiser’s response for Review states that Cytotron was certified by BSI after years long certification process of each component/ method of manufacture and its efficacy for the cartilage growth, and has approved the extensive clinical trials conducted and has concluded that the QMRT is the only known modality that proves cartilage re-growth - and Cytotron does it. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted additional data in the form of the pre and post MRI details on the growth of cartilage reported by third party MRI centres, the statistics of 100 patients' cartilage thickness of pre and post treatment recorded by third party MRI centres, and copies of the their reports. The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the data submitted by the advertiser gives no information of 100 clients who have undergone the procedure. Information related to initial symptoms, clinical signs, investigations and reasons of indication for Cytotron Treatment is conspicuously absent. Advertiser did not provide comparative trial of patients treated with Cytotron and Surgery and the follow up in support of their claim. Mention of Pre and Post MRI too is misleading because consumers of Osteoarthritis in various stages are likely to believe that Cure has been proved by MRI scans, the Ad shows MRI machine which will strengthen such a misbelief. Consumers are likely to go in for MRIs without any specific indications for the same. Annexure 1 of the Advertiser’s response seems to be a Report for Regulatory Authorities than a Clinical Trial for publication/published in a Peer Review International Journal devoted to Orthopedics. Even the stress is on Cartilage and not on “Why no Surgery or Why avoid Joint replacement”. Annexure 3 is the list of so called cartilage growth which does not unequivocally prove the claim of “No Surgery or Reasons to Avoid Joint replacement”. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Avoid joint replacement and regenerate cartilages”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by implication and exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The earlier decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Clove Dental"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. 9 Out Of Every 10 Indians Suffer From Gum And Dental Disease. 2. Dental health surveys indicate that 90% of Indians have poor oral health. Why take a chance? 3. India's Largest Dental Chain - 118 Clinics And Growing - 180,000 Satisfied Customers"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"On receiving the CCC’s Recommendation, the advertiser sought for a review of the same. They confirmed suspension of the said advertisement pending review and also assured to comply with the CCC review recommendation. The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for review. Advertiser states that Clove Dental currently operating under brand names Clove Dental & Clove-Denty's (in South India) has more than 150 dental Clinics as on date i.e. 28th March 2017 and they are undoubtedly largest Dental Chain of India. Further, the advertiser informed that they would not be able to share the details of their customers / patients as they consider this against violation of privacy of their patients. As claim support data, the Advertiser provided summary of several dental chains in India having five or more than five clinics to substantiate their claim of being the largest. They also referred to an article published by EHealth (a third party publisher), and provided the relevant abstract of this article which reflects that Clove Dental currently has 116 clinics operational and is the largest dental clinic chain in India in terms of number of clinics, doctors, specialists and dental chairs. Based on this data and in the absence of any contradictory data of other competitors, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's Largest Dental Chain - 118 Clinics”, was substantiated. This complaint is Not Upheld on Review. The claim, “180,000 Satisfied Customers”, was not substantiated with relevant supporting data such as independent certification or audit report, and is is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint being Upheld stands on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Mobitech Creations Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"OnePlus 3T – Best Smartphone Contest"

COMPLAINT:

“One Plus 3T is the best rated smartphone in India”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Complaint No.1 The brand OnePlus has tied up with Amitabh Bachchan as their brand ambassador and on the lines of KBC Program have launched a contest. The Prize being Rs 1 Crore & you can win this by sharing the video and similar activities. https://twitter.com/OnePlus_IN/status/839696371364020224 In the advertisement they showcase that their phone along with 3 other leading devices which is fair but the poll shows that 100% of users recommending their own product which is not fair. Even if they factual based on the number of ratings other phones would also get a better percentage but they chose to promote in a way that the other devices get shamed. Complaint No.2 One Plus states One Plus 3T is India's best rated smartphone in a Kaun Banega Crorepati like television show. Its misleading as the advertisement doesn't clearly state what research agency has said so. Even if they have put some words in small text in the advertisement its difficult to read with naked eyes which clearly shows its misleading the consumers to take for granted that One Plus 3T is the best rated smartphone."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response through their Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the advertiser states that the advertisement is a bona fide promotion of the OnePlus Smartphone based on factual data verified and substantiated by the Nielsen's Report. The questions posed in the Advertisement are of a subjective nature and the response depicted is based on the Amazon.in consumer ratings, duly verified and substantiated by the Nielsen's report dated March 1, 2017. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of this Nielsen's Report. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advocate’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the Commercial begins with a large display / logo of “Best Smartphone Contest”, even though the question is specifically based on consumer ratings i.e. “Which is the best rated smartphone in India?” with a disclaimer, that the question is based on current model smartphone ratings on Amazon.in. This is likely to create confusion in viewers’ minds that the ratings on smartphone on Amazon.in are equivalent to ratings of the Best Smartphone across India. The number of those rating OnePlus 3T on Amazon may not be an indication of special preference of OnePlus 3T; but merely that of an exclusive relationship that the brand historically had with Amazon. Other brands are retailed through multiple channels; and only those customers who have purchased from Amazon are invited to rate the brand purchased on their website. No verification or validation of customer responses on Amazon website has been done to ensure that those offering their ratings for display on their website are genuine, independent buyers. Claims used in advertising need to be clearly shown as being impartially collected, independent of the sponsor. No such proof has been offered. The CCC observed that in fact, Nielsen has specifically mentioned in their disclaimer that they “don’t hold any claim related to the methodology, accuracy, respondent profile, representativeness, etc. of the customer ratings”. Two other Apple brands (iPhone 5c and iPhone 6s) also have the 4.4 customer rating that has been obtained by OnePlus 3T on Amazon. Since the commercial begins with a prominent logo of the “Best Smartphone Contest” and then has 100% of the audience going for OnePlus 3T, the ‘shaming’ of every other smartphone is implicit. The CCC concluded that the claim, “One Plus 3T is the best rated smartphone in India”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaints were UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Pisces eServices Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Foodpanda"

COMPLAINT:

“Upto 50% off”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Please make a note of the adhoc complaint against same Brand (FOOD PANDA) for Fraudulent Marketing email showing 50% discount on brands like KFC and Pizza HUT.. Pushing customer to download app but no discount is being offered on these brands. Its nothing more than an act of making fool of innocent customer and increase there app download. PFA all supporting screenshots in the mail body (below) itself.. Kindly take necessary actions.. and set and example for others!"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – mailer. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Upto 50% off”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the advertised product being available for sale at discounted price and evidence of genuine customers who have availed of this offer on KFC and Pizza Hut with 50% off, and is misleading. The Ad – mailer contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"National School of Business"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“3rd Best for return-on-investment in India” “5th Best for Highest Salary in South India”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"National school of business, Bangalore puts FAKE placement statistics online. Salary packages are inflated and most companies listed never visited the college. This is a clear case of fake and misleading advertisement. Students and parents get admitted to the college and spend their hard earned money seeing these fake salary packages and companies that never visited. This is not just National school of business...every college in Bangalore is doing this. There should be some strict action taken. Please take this matter under public interest. 1.)NSBMisleadingAdvertisement1 : On the top the college is making a false claim that it is 3rd Best for Return on Investment in India and 5th Best for Highest Salary in South India. When they provided very bad salary packages, and students went off-campus then how come they mention this false claim??? 2.)NSBMisleadingAdvertisement2 : Many of the companies mentioned never visited NSB Campus, and if they did where is the concrete evidence from the side of the respective company listed ??? Kindly look into the matter and take action. College management is taking society for granted in one of the most important cities in India, city of Bangalore where people migrate in search of jobs. Kindly watch this promotional video of National School of Business. The Information provided regarding placements are false. The salary packages are inflated. The companies listed in this promotional video of National school of business, many of them didn't visit campus. Link: https://youtu.be/6N1SSz2_N0Y My complaint is not just against the ranking. My complaint is against the claim college makes about Placements based on which college states that it is provides 5th highest salary in South India and hence 3rd best in India for return on investment. These claims are not related to the rankings in independent agencies but related to placements. College should provide evidence of companies listed in their website, that they visited college and offered such salaries. The proof is offer letters/appointment letters which college management should keep a record of. I am not complaining against college rankings in independent magazines and agencies. Rankings are based on various parameters not just placements. I am complaining against PLACEMENTS based on which college states that it gives 5th highest salary in South India and 3rd best for return on investment in India. College should show offer letters or appointment letters. This is a serious case of misleading advertisement about college placements. Please note that all these complaints are related to On- Campus Placements and the proof will lie in the Offer letters OR Appointment Letters with the salary packages (CTC) mentioned in the Offer letters OR Appointment Letters. I am NOT complaining against other aspects of the college. Kindly watch the promotional YouTube video of National school of business that I had provided earlier where the salary packages were inflated. This video was aired on March 2016 when our batch's placements were taking place and hence we know that the placement figures and companies and salary packages are inflated. We felt betrayed badly on seeing this promotional video. Because we weren't provided with such placement opportunities at all But the same time college is taking us for granted by airing a promotional video where wrong facts about Placements are provided. https://youtu.be/6N1SSz2_N0Y"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was provided an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecom. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the claims made are based on the ratings given by the rating agencies like Silicon India. The statistics viz. Names of the companies and the salary packages are extremely factual and are supported by the facts given in the attachment titled ""companies who have placed NSB graduates"". Also, in that attachment, they have mentioned the names of other companies which have recruited NSB graduates but are not a part of the advertising campaign on the website. As claim support data, the advertiser provided offer letters of eight students, and an All India B School survey 2016 which shows that National School of Business was ranked 9th in the placements category and 3rd in Top B-Schools with Best ROI category. The CCC noted that scope of this survey was under “What if not IIMs”. The CCC noted that the Advertiser did not provide the details of the process of how the selection for award was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar applicants that were part of the survey and the outcome. There was no direct support for claiming 5th Best for High Salary in South India. The CCC concluded that the claims, “3rd Best for return-on-investment in India” and “5th Best for Highest Salary in South India”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by omission of the reference to indicate source of ranking and by implication as it is adjacent to a reference to Forbes survey. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"RSPL Limited"
PRODUCT: "Ghadi Detergent Powder"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint no.1 “It is regarding roudee person applying holi colors to a girl it is promoting unsocial activities of young boys during holi” Complaint no.2 “it is a advertisement about washing powder brand name Ghadi. this is an advertisement about washing powder just promote it. how they can dare to defame the glory of hindu festival Holi. This is bullshit. just stop telecasting this rubbish advertisement.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainants. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC showing “the boy eve teasing a girl and forcibly applying Holi colour on the face of the girl”. The CCC opined that while the TVC shows eve-teasing, it concludes with a positive message for women to not hold back and stand up and resist somebody who tries to emulate such an act. The CCC concluded that in the context of the overall message, the TVC was not objectionable. The complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Laksh Coaching School"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“True Claim 100% Guaranteed. (Misleading as implies admission to IIT/ Medical)”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the advertisement does not give any indication regarding admission to IIT/Medical. The Institution does not take classes for preparation of IIT/Medical rather in foundation classes ignites the mind of students and increases their mental status to prepare for IIT/Medical in future. The CCC noted that the claims have a clear reference to preparation for IIT JEE / Medical courses and concluded that the claim, “True Claim 100% Guaranteed”, is likely to mislead the students as it implies 100% guarantee for future admission to IIT/medical. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Ramappa Police Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job guarantee coaching”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job guarantee coaching”, was not substantiated with any verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "National Institute of Event Management"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Asia's First & Best Event Management Institute” “Won Best Event Institute Award Eemax Global Award”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that - Claim, “Asia's First & Best Event Management Institute” – Advertiser asserts that they were the first to start an Event institute, this fact is recorded in the Limca Book of Records. Many students and the event industry consider them to be the best but the main proof is that many National news papers have mentioned them as the best in Asia. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of Limca certificate, and copy of few press cuttings. The CCC reviewed the data and noted that while the advertiser has provided a certificate of Limca Book of Records for being Asia’s first, it pertains to only the institute being Asia’s first institute offering a Diploma in event management (DEM) and a PGDEM for graduates. The advertisement does not give reference to this aspect. Advertiser did not provide a list of other Event Management institutes with the date/year of establishment to justify the claim of them being First Institute in India or Asia and any comparative study to show why and how and on what criteria they were considered as the best. The CCC also noted that reference to other institutes in Asia for “offering Diploma in Event Management anda PGDEM for graduates” was not relevant as these courses are only pertinent to India and not internationally recognized or available. The CCC also came cross another institute making a similar reference to Limca Book of Records for Event Management Institute (NAEMD) and considered this to be conflicting data. In the absence of appropriate documentary evidence, the CCC concluded the claim, “Asia's First & Best Event Management Institute”, and reference to Limca Book of records was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and omission. Claim, “Won Best Event Institute Award Eemax Global Award” - Advertiser states that they won the EEMAX Global Award for the Best Educational Event Program from EEMA, which is the representative body for event industry in India and a few countries. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the award and a screenshot of the website mentioning the award in their name, and a copy of the award procedure. The advertiser offered to remove the claim “Best” from the claim. This response was not considered to be exhaustive and adequate as claim support data. Additionally, the CCC noted that the website screenshot mentioned the winners of the EEMAX Global Award 2015, which showed that National Institute of Event Management was awarded silver in the category of “Best Event Management marketing education program”. The advertiser did not provide any supporting evidence such as survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, criteria used for evaluation, names of other similar institutes that were part of the survey and outcome of the survey. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Won Best Event Institute Award Eemax Global Award”, was false and misleading by implication. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Sona College of Technology"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement including Global / Foreign placement”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement including Global / Foreign placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Winners Study Circle Telangana Winners Study Circle"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Job guarantee course by State No.1 Faculty”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Job guarantee course by State No.1 Faculty”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data versus faculty of other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research, and is misleading by implication and exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 
 

COMPANY:"Narayana IIT/NEET Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Always No.1 2. Trust the LEADER to make you a WINNER."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Always No.1”, “Trust the Leader”, were not substantiated with year wise verifiable comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"AKB Inst Of Finance & Mgmt"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job”, was not substantiated with verifiable 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. The claim is misleading by implication that the institute is providing permanent jobs. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "ZEE Interactive Learning Syst"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“India's No.1 Pre School”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 Pre School”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data versus other similar institute in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration and by ambiguity and omission. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"EuroKids International Private Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Most Trusted Pre-School Brand”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the claim made is on the basis of receipt of award ‘India’s Most Trusted Brand Pre-School’ from IBC InfoMedia Pvt Ltd in the year 2015. As claim support data, the advertiser provided photograph of the award and certificate, Invitation to the award event, Screenshot of their logo as award winner on IBC InfoMedia Pvt Ltd, and website link to the News article. The CCC noted that the award certificate shows that the award was granted to the advertiser in the category of `India’s best preschool’ in year 2015, which was not clearly called out in the advertisement and the source of the award was also not mentioned. While the advertiser provided reference to the certificate, the Advertiser did not provide the details of the process of how the selection for award was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar applicants that were part of the survey and the outcome, etc. In the absence of such details, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Most Trusted Pre-School Brand”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is not qualified to mention the source and date of research and is misleading by omission. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Adithya IAS Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“For 100% Victory comes to Adithya”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “For 100% Victory comes to Adithya”, is not substantiated and is misleading by implication that the students would qualify for IAS. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sun Infosystems Pvt Ltd - Sun Infosystems Comp Edu (Guj)"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Sun Infosystems Pvt Ltd - Sun Infosystems Comp Edu (Guj)"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Get scholarship up to 100%*”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Babu Banarsi Das Institute of Technology"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Placement in MBA”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement in MBA”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"NEEV Coaching (NGP)-NEEV Coaching"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Result In All Previous Batches.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Result In All Previous Batches”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of the results of their students specific to Entrance exams, and is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Sujas (SKR)-ML "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“100% Employment/Job abroad courses” “Distance Education 100 percent pass”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Employment/Job abroad courses”, 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 verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students. The claim, “Distance Education 100 percent pass”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Emami Limited "
PRODUCT: "Keshking ayurvedic oil"

COMPLAINT:

“Freedom from hair loss”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“Kesh King Shampoo gives freedom from Hair loss” – “Kesh King shampoo deto kes galnya pasun humkhaas muktata”

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the claim in Marathi as translated in English would mean that ""Kesh King Shampoo provides relief from Hair Fall"", and the claim has been further qualified through a super as ""hair fall due to hair breakage"". As the subject advertisement was in Marathi, the whole intention of putting up such a communication was to impress upon the target users of the product that it is helpful in preventing /providing relief from hair fall. They have tested the performance of the product's ability to reduce hair fall due to hair breakage at an International Independent Testing Labs viz. TRI, Princeton. The key observations and conclusions abstracted from this report shows that Emami Kesh King Shampoo gives a statistically significant lower breakage when compared to the damaged unoiled hair. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Google translate application screen shot, various research articles, scientific literature on anti breakage claims on hair grooming products, and a copy of Princeton report. The CCC which also had members familiar with Marathi language noted that the TVC claim “Kesh King shampoo deto kes galnya pasun humkhaas muktata” means Kesh King shampoo definitely gives freedom from hairloss. Whereas the advertiser states that the product provides reduction in hair breakage. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention of the translation being correct and concluded that the claim, “Kesh King shampoo deto kesh galnaipasun humkaas mukhttha”, (“Kesh King Shampoo gives freedom from Hair loss”) was false and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"United Biscuits Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Mcvities Digestive biscuits"

COMPLAINT:

“Whole wheat at its heart”, “Yeh habit hai fit”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“I bought a pack of Mcvities Digestive biscuits from a store near my house. It had ""Whole wheat at its heart"" written on it. I turned the pack around and saw that the biscuit pack mentioned whole wheat at its heart. When I checked the ingredients at the back of the pack I was surprised to find the the biscuit is made of wheat flour or Maida. I feel cheated since their packaging shows wheat and they are putting maida. This is very irresponsible behavior from Mcvities. Kindly take strict action against them I am attaching the images of the biscuit pack. The claim of Wholewheat at its heart is on front of the pack. They have also claimed ""yeh habit hai fit"" on back of pack. I would like to know whether eating this biscuit will make me fit ”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI at which time they submitted their written submissions. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the claim, “Whole wheat at its heart" has been used on the pack as a marketing communication to help build awareness about Mcvities Digestive biscuits being made of whole wheat flour as key ingredient besides wheat flour (maida) and has been coined to mean that whole wheat is essentially, fundamentally, basically and in essence a key ingredient of the product. The slogan "yeh habit hai fit" appearing on the back of the pack is a marketing slogan to convey a message to its consumer that consumption of Mcvities Digestive biscuits is a good habit because the product's pack size, price and quality are just right. The CCC noted that the predominant ingredient in the product is maida. The CCC concluded that in the context of a biscuit having maida as predominant ingredient, the packaging claim, “Whole wheat at its heart”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The claim, “Yeh habit hai fit”, is misleading by implication that it is a good habit to eat biscuits and it would contribute to physical fitness. The product packaging contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Britannia Industries Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Britannia Nutrichoice Essentials Oat Cookies"

COMPLAINT:

“Diabetic Friendly”, “Clinically proven”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Britannia Nutrichoice Essentials biscuits are diabetic friendly. I gave britannia nutrichoice oats to my type 2 diabetic parents after looking at ""diabetic friendly"" claim on the pack. Later the doctor scolded me for doing this and blamed me for bringing further risk for parents. He explained that none of these claims are clinically tested/proven on diabetic people by Britannia Nutrichoice and is misleading consumers to sell its poor products at very high price. For god sake, stop milking money from people who are already suffering and stop making the situation worse. Product has claimed to be Diabetic Friendly and can correct sugar fluctuations however the same is not tested on patients & hence misleading innocent patients. 1. On the side of the pack, a biscuit is shows in graph correcting the sugar fluctuations and mentioned as ""Clinically Proven"". How can a biscuit correct the sugar fluctuations? Where is the proof of this claim? 2. On the front of the pack, ""Diabetic Friendly"" is mentioned. Where is the proof of this claim? Britannia is misleading consumers to sell its poor products at very high price by playing with medical situation.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of five days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension of 10 days. The advertiser submitted their response by the extended due date. Also, the advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI to explain their submissions. Advertiser states that Britannia Nutrichoice Essentials was designed with a specific intent to deliver a product which besides having “no added sugar”, had a low glycemic index and had high fibre, to serve the frequent snacking needs of diabetics. The product has high dietary fiber content, low Glycemic Index, 0% added sugar, no trans fat and contains complex carbohydrate including Inulin. The product has 9.6 grams of dietary fibre which makes it high in fibre content as a biscuit and this is one of the important factors in making the product diabetes friendly. The combination of all these factors makes it a good snacking choice for diabetics. A seal of trust in the form of “Clinically proven” is printed on the wrapper of the pack to assure the consumers about the product being low GI which has been certified. As claim support data, the advertiser provided various research articles, Fibre Test report of Britannia NutriChoice Essentials Oat Cookies, and Glycemic Index Testing Report from third party testing. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that as per test reports, the product has low glycemic index. The front of pack claim states “diabetic friendly” However, the claim, ""Clinically Proven"" appearing on the panel that has information about diabetes management, actually refers to GI testing in healthy volunteers and not a scientific clinical trial of biscuits among diabetic patients. Its juxtaposition with the graph showing Blood sugar levels (albeit graphically and not actually), and Picture of a Biscuit on X Axis is misleading to the diabetic consumer reader. The graphical representation implies and the accompanying text states that “Manage swings in blood sugar levels”. Most damaging is the line graph showing High sugar levels drastically coming down in post biscuit picture. The claim, ""Clinically Proven” is not substantiated with studies for the advertised product among diabetic population, and the graph is misleading by implication that the product provides benefits of reducing the overall sugar levels. The claims appearing on product packaging contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Muktha Laboratories Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Catche must-quit-o"

COMPLAINT:

"“1. Safe and natural 2. A revolutionary way to reduce mosquitoes in your surrounding 3. Bite free environment 4. Sleep healthy, live healthy 5. Free from dengue, malaria, chikungunya 6. Traps only female mosquitoes which bites 7. No insecticides and pesticides 8. Free from wheezing, congestion and headache 9. Can be used in closed rooms 10. Purifies air 11. Reduces 90% bacterial load in the room 12. Breathe fresh, stay fresh 13. World’s first non-toxic and eco-friendly 14. Non toxic as per OECD guidelines”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Our Objection: 1. Claims 1-14 need to be substantiated with independent scientific reports. 2. What is meant by ‘a revolutionary way to reduce mosquitoes in your surrounding’? 3. What should the size of the room be for the product to be effective? 4. How does the product ensure that it traps only female mosquitoes? 5. How does a mosquito repellent claim to purify air? 6. How does the product claim to “reduce 90% bacterial load in the room?? 7. Which particular OECD guidelines have been referred to determine the product as non toxic? Which lab has certified that the product is “non toxic as per OECD Guidelines?? 8. The advt claims that the product is tested by TATA Advinus. Is this an independent testing? Details of the testing done, the year when it was done, validity of the report needs to be examined. If the testing was commissioned by Mukhta Laboratories then it is not independent. 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 to be taken - We propose this advt should be immediately withdrawn"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and requested for an extension of time to respond, through their Advocates. The advertiser was granted an extension of additional five days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension of two weeks. The advertiser submitted their response by the extended due date, through their Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the advertiser states that their client have carried out several tests to arrive at the claims made by them. As claim support data, the Advocate provided Test report issued by SGS India Pvt. Ltd, Test report on Non-toxic issued by SGS India Pvt. Ltd, Report on the efficacy of liquid vaporizer against three mosquito species, Study Plan on Herbal mosquito repellant - Toxicity Studies. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advocate’s response as well as opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that - Claim – “Safe and natural” - No list of ingredients, nor any test report, was provided to substantiate the claim of natural. A safety test as per OECD Norms-2009 Guide lines for Testing of Chemicals: ""Acute Inhalation Toxicity"" was performed by a third party, Tata Advinus, to show compliance, so the product may be considered safe for short-term (acute) exposure. However, it is to be noted that the product is used over a long period of time, several hours per day and several days, months and even longer, so a chronic exposure text would have been indicated. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “A revolutionary way to reduce mosquitoes in your surrounding” - No substantive evidence or test reports to this effect of ""revolutionary"" was provided. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “Bite free environment” - No human skin exposure test reports were provided to substantiate this claim. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “Free from dengue, malaria, chikungunya” - The product is tested to show that it does repels mosquitoes of the type that carry these vectors. Complete freedom cannot be assured. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “Traps only female mosquitoes which bites” – Advertiser claims that the test report from the Entomology Research Institute shows that there were only female mosquitoes repelled in the test conducted by them, hence the claim. However, a careful reading of the test performed by the Entomology Research Institute clearly mentions in its methodology that they used only female mosquitoes, so the result is not surprising. Hence the test performed and quoted does not prove the claim. This claim was not substantiated as the test was not done with male mosquitoes. Claim – “No insecticides and pesticides” - A test report from an independent third party, SGS, shows below detectable limit of a large panel of insecticides and pesticides. However, without mention of the active ingredient, the basis of the effectiveness is questionable. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “Free from wheezing, congestion and headache” - No test reports to this effect were provided. This claim was not substantiated. Claim – “Purifies air” - The advertiser claims that there is a white coating inside the device consisting of TiO2, which performs photo-catalytic reaction. This reaction is claimed to cause the bacteria and fungi present in the air to get converted to CO2 and H2O. Thus the air in the room is purified. However, no evidence to the actual performance of this reaction was presented, nor to its extent and effectiveness. Moreover, there are so many other possible air pollutants, so this claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim – “Reduces 90% bacterial load in the room” - The advertiser claims a coating of TiO2 which reduced the bacterial load. A test report from SGS (page 1) shows reduction from 9 cfu to 4 cfu (a cfu is colony forming unit, a way of measuring the number of bacteria). There are several lacunae in this report: the test sample is merely described as ""titanium dioxide coated on plastic"" and it does not clearly represent the product in question; the test method has not been described; and the reduction reported is from 9 to 4, which does not amount to a 90% reduction. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Claim - “Breathe fresh, stay fresh” - No test reports provided to show that with use of this product the user can breathe fresh or stay fresh. This claim was not substantiated. Claim, “World’s first non-toxic and eco-friendly” - No rest report to the product being eco-friendly was provided. No report or data demonstrating ""world's first"" was provided. This claim was not substantiated. Claim - “Non toxic as per OECD guidelines” - A safety test as per OECD Norms-2009 Guide lines for Testing of Chemicals: ""Acute Inhalation Toxicity"" was performed by a third party, Tata Advinus, to show compliance, so the product may be considered safe for short-term (acute) exposure. However, it is to be noted that the product is used over a long period of time, several hours per day and several days, months and even longer, so a chronic exposure text would have been indicated. This claim was inadequately substantiated. Also, all these claims were considered to be misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. These complaints were UPHELD. Claim – “Sleep healthy, live healthy” - This is a generic claim, and a medically accepted fact that adequate sleep promotes health. Claim – “Can be used in closed rooms” – This is not really a claim, more of a usage instruction. These complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Hindustan Unilever Limited"
PRODUCT:"Pepsodent Germi Check"

COMPLAINT:

Pepsodent germi check advertisement is misleading children. My kids demanding ice creams and claiming that when uses pepsodent there is no harm to their teeth. Will the company really guarantee what they are advertising? Ban the advertisement for the healthy young population of our country.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that it is a well-known and accepted fact that Indians have a sweet tooth and that the sweet consumption goes up significantly during the festival season. Pepsodent Germicheck Healthy Fresh is an efficacious toothpaste formulated to help prevent cavities and maintain healthy and strong teeth. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Articles regarding sugar consumption patterns in India as well as articles on Caries-preventive effect of fluoride toothpaste and earlier TVCs of the Advertiser with similar depictions of Germicheck protection for maintaining oral health among sweet eating children, and Examples of some YouTube links of other advertisers. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser calls out the peculiar sweet consumption pattern in India and has submitted efficacy data of fluoride containing toothpaste against caries. However, the CCC observed that the data provided by the advertiser is not specifically addressing efficacy of fluoride containing toothpaste among Indian population, especially given the sugary food consumption pattern highlighted by the advertiser. There was no data submitted to prove effectiveness of the advertised product over the 12 hour period with frequent intake of sugary food as depicted in the TVC. The TVC does not convey regular brushing after eating sweets. The CCC concluded that in the context of the TVC showing frequent consumption of sugary food by children (laddoos, ice cream, chocolates) and a voice over stating, “jahan lagataar 12 mahiney sweet eating ho, wahan Pepsodent Germicheck ki lagataar 12 ghantey cavity wale germs per dishoom dishoom zaroori hai”, the pack visual claim in the TVC “12 hour protection”, was inadequately substantiated. The TVC is misleading by implication and omission of other measures required to be taken for protection from caries after eating sugary food. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd"
PRODUCT:"HDFC ERGO General Insurance"

COMPLAINT:

"“In their company website : www.hdfcergo.com published and advertising how much network hospital have with them for quality cashless services. Need to give actual information about out of their list how much are really tie up or misleading to the customer. I am giving an example of one hospital name they claimed that they have not any tie up with HDFC ergo but in insurance company website is still showing, by seeing this website for getting cashless facility my father was admitted in hospital (Minimal access surgery clinic pvt Ltd, purba medinipur tamluk west bengal 721636) but don't get cashless facility hospital administrative ignored that and for emergency purpose need to admission over there but when I doing reimbursement of medical expenditure they harassing me to raised query regarding treatment and details. My question is that HDFC ergo official website provides me actual information then I went cashless hospital and this type of problems not occurred. you can search from their official website (www.hdfcergo.com) of network hospital list and their still its showing Minimal access surgery clinic limited ,padumbasan tamluk purba medinipur west bengal-721636 are cashless hospital but when my father admitted over there we talked with hospital authority and according to them they have not any renewed contact with HDFC ergo but due to emergency purpose need to take hospital on that time but when i doing reimbursement claim then hdfc issued various query about hospitalization and documents related to hospital as well as medical treatment, if they are not advertise by their offficial portal that hospital are not listed hospital hospital with then we can avoid easily to search other hospital for cashless facilty and this type harrasment not happend. But my question is that they may be advertise more than one hospital like minimal but in real life they have not contact with them and cheated customer like me by seing false advertisement. please check attachment of snapshort of HDFC ERGO official website and reimbursement query for my claim.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that the name of the network hospital/s for availing cashless services, displayed on the website of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd is not an advertisement but a disclosure made by the Company in pursuance of the IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that “Cashless” is only a disclosure and not an advertisement as this is a benefit which influences consumers’ purchase decision for their product / services. The complainant provided evidence of reimbursement query for his claim whereas the advertiser did not submit any pertinent information in support of “Cashless” claim. Based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Cashless Hospitals in Purba Midnapore”, was not substantiated with supporting data, evidence of genuine customers who have availed of this cashless facility. Also, the claim is misleading by omission of appropriate qualifiers for the cashless services offered by them. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "The Emirates Group"
PRODUCT:"Emirates Airlines"

COMPLAINT:

“Received an email on 14 March 2017 from the Emirates airlines that they are starting flights to Newark and as a promotional offer they are offering tickets @68800 and allow 3 pieces of luggage. It does not mention the validity of the offer or the period it is valid. I booked accordingly it the cost was much higher and no 3 bag allowance.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the Ad – emailer and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser stated that in accordance with company policy and data protection laws, they are required to correspond directly with the passenger and did not submit any claim support data to ASCI. Based on the evidence submitted by the complainant regarding his ticket booking, the CCC concluded that in the absence of claim support data, the claim, “We’re offering special introductory fares starting from INR 68,800 in Economy class offering an additional piece of luggage (total of 3 pieces) to Newark”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the advertised offer being available and evidence of genuine customers who have availed of this offer. Furthermore, the claim is misleading. The Ad – mailer contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Godrej Consumer Products Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Cinthol"

COMPLAINT:

“Buy 3 Get 1 Free”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“Buy 4 and Get 1 Free. Nothing more than ""Buy 3 and get 1 Free"" is mentioned in the front of the pack of 125g Cinthol Lime soaps from Godrej. on the back side states the real picture. The free soap os not of 125g but only 75gm smaller soap”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the weights of the soaps are explained on one side of the principal display panel as required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules. The details provided are the offer itself and not the disclaimer. The claim, “Buy 3 get 1 free” just highlights that there is some offer available along with the Product. Advertiser provided sample of the product packaging. The CCC noted that “Buy 3 Get 1 Free**”, is prominently displayed on the front of pack. However, this declaration is misleading by ambiguity and omission as the fourth pack is not of the same size. While the said claim was qualified by a disclaimer to declare the details of the free offer - “Buy 3 units of 125g soaps and get 1 unit of 75g free”, the placement position of the disclaimer was not on the same panel of the packaging as the claim made. The CCC concluded that the packaging claim, “Buy 3 Get 1 Free”, contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clause 4 (III) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“Placement position of disclaimers of a claim on packaging should be in prominent and visible space and could be ideally on the same panel of the packaging as the claim made.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "J G Hosiery Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Sporto Red Track Pants"

COMPLAINT:

"The ad is about track pants where young persons are shown doing 'athletic' things wearing the brands's clothes. At one instance, a person is jumping over a road divider on a busy city road. In my opinion, such behaviour endangers a person life and can also be a cause of a serious vehicular accident. Another instance in same ad, shows a person running after a taxi which again could be dangerous. Kindly advise the publisher to edit these visuals."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the two situations shown in the TVC are small snippets of visuals which is just a reflection of everyday life in India, and these scenes have been qualified by a disclaimer. The CCC noted that the actions shown of a boy crossing the road on a busy road with vehicles plying and a boy jumping over a road divider, are performed on normal streets, and in traffic conditions. These can not be considered as “stunts” and the actions are contradictory to the disclaimer made in the TVC – “The stunts are performed by professionals or under the supervision of professionals. Do not try this at home". The CCC concluded that though the overall TVC is not objectionable, regardless of the disclaimer, these specific visuals encourage dangerous practices, manifest a disregard for safety and encourages negligence. The TVC contravened Chapter III.3 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Finolex Cables ltd"
PRODUCT:"Finolex breaker/ RCCB"

COMPLAINT:

"Complaint No.1 - “As a young woman,it's extremely disturbing to watch such irrelevant dirty ADs. It was an AD for a safety component and a woman was stripping herself while the power got shut down due to an overload. What is the message that this AD is even trying to convey? It is extremely irrelevant to showcase a woman getting stripped. It is not right that such ADs are even approved of being aired on the channels. Film being telecasted: Naanum Rowdy Dhaan I request you to take necessary actions as soon as possible against such Ads” Complaint No. 2- “The advertisement about Finolex wires. It shows Girl is stripping her dress one by one end of it she about loose her last dress power cuts and it show use Finolex to avoid this. This is very irritating and puts women in a bad light. Added to that we cannot watch this with entire family sitting in front of the TV. We request you to kindly Ban this kind of advertisement and advise the advertiser to use some sense in creating advertisement”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The Advertiser was provided an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecom wherein the advertiser volunteered to suitably modify the TVC. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the advertisement is replicating the scenario of a Reality Show. The woman in the film is an artist who is performing, like it happens in Reality Shows on Channels, in today's day and age. The CCC observed that the visuals of a woman shown to perform a dance like strip-tease, portrays women in poor light and is not relevant for the product being advertised. However, the TVC is not likely to cause grave and widespread offence. The complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

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

COMPLAINT:

“Get upto 100% Cashback At Burger King When You Pay With Paytm Wallet”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Misleading 100% cashback advertisement for Burger King if you pay via PayTM. The terms and conditions say the maximum cashback that can be availed is Rs 30. There is no item selling for Rs 30 in Burger King so the cashback can never be 100%."

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that there are several items, which the Burger King is selling @ Rs 30/ or even at a lesser price and has accordingly offered 100% cash back on purchase of the same to its customers as per T&C of the offer. As claim support data, the advertiser submitted two retail invoices of customers which establishes the sale of Vanila Softy @ Rs. 15/-, the all inclusive price of which is Rs. 18.01, and sale of Choco Dip Softy @ Rs. 25/-, the all inclusive price of which is Rs. 30.00. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Get upto 100% Cashback At Burger King When You Pay With Paytm Wallet”, when seen in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions that “Maximum cashback can be availed is Rs. 30/ per transaction” was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"VLCC Personal Care Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"“Let your slimmer self out in just 90 mins” “Get instant enviable results with insta Tone”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser was granted an extension of eight days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for extension. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and also did not submit their written response by the extended due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and noted that the advertiser did not provide details of the Insta Tone process/treatment for slim reduction. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Let your slimmer self out in just 90 mins” and “Get instant enviable results with insta Tone”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by implication and gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Gurukul Sansthan "
PRODUCT:"Jod"

COMPLAINT:

"Gurukul Sansthan - Jodhpur division's first stamp written guarantee for 100% selection”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Rajasthan Patrika) 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 prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of response from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim (in Hindi) as translated in English, “Jodhpur division's first stamp written guarantee for 100% selection”, for Rajasthan Police Constable position was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading by implication and exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Nishant Classes "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Avail Up To 100% Scholarship. 2. Agra's No.1 Institute For Competitive Preparations"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that a student can avail upto 100% scholarship in their courses through their Scholarship cum Admission Test, which can be cross-verified with their existing students who have availed the same. On the basis of results published by local competing preparatory coaching Institutes, cumulatively they have produced more results than each of them, hence, they are the No.1 institute based on criterion of results produced. As this response was inadequate, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit additional data for verification. As claim support data, the advertiser subsequently provided a summary giving details of eight students such as school name, contact nos, batch size, scholarship on tuition fee, and a Survey by MVN News, Agra, for Best Institute For Competitive Preparations. The CCC reviewed the data and concluded that the claim, “Avail Up To 100% Scholarship”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. The claim, “Agra's No.1 Institute For Competitive Preparations”, was inadequately substantiated with comparative data versus other similar institutes. Also, the claim is not qualified to mention the source and date of research and is misleading by omission. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Achievers Academy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Upto 100% Scholarship”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response through their Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the Advertiser argues that their client’s advertisement does not contravene the ASCI Code. The advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made by them. ASCI further requested the advertiser/advocates to submit claim support data, to which no response was received from them in time for the CCC meeting. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advocate’s response. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Upto 100% Scholarship”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships availed by any of their students. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Aakruti Physiotherapy & Slimming Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Reduce weight 2. Lose upto 7-10 kg within 40 days. 3. Kerala's No.1."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that they use physiotherapy equipments and Electrical Muscle stimulation, a physiotherapeutic procedure, which is proven to aid in losing weight. In their Physiotherapy practice its been proven that a normal healthy individual will lose upto 7-10 kgs within 40 days with their treatment if they follow the regular routine along with a normal healthy diet. Their customer service has even been awarded by the consumer protection, and they consider themselves qualified to be the No.1 Slimming Centre in Kerala. In support of their response, the advertiser provided details of qualifications of their Physiotherapist and Calicut corporation Paramedical license renewal receipt for the clinic. The CCC noted that the advertiser made assertions about their treatment, but did not provide any details of the clinical evidence of the benefit of their physiotherapy treatment. The treatment also involves diet control which is not mentioned in the advertisement. Impact of physiotherapy alone has not been conclusively proven in such patients. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims accompanied by diagrammatic representation of a shrinking hour glass figure, “Reduce weight”, “Lose upto 7-10 kg within 40 days”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among statistically significant sample size, and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Also, the visual in the advertisement is misleading by implication. While the advertiser referred to the award by consumer protection, they did not provide a copy of the award certificate. In the absence of such details, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Kerala’s No.1”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Adani Wilmar Limited"
PRODUCT:"Raag Gold Refined Palmolein Oil"

COMPLAINT:

"“More healthy”, “More Tasty”, “More fry”. The visual in the advertisement shows deep fried food. Claim is misleading by implication."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser argues that ASCI does not have any power, jurisdiction and authority to entertain complaints against them. Further, in response to the complaint, the advertiser states that properly refined, bleached and deodorized Raag Gold Palmolein has high smoke point, moderate in saturated fats, free from trans fats and rich in stable MUFA. Hence, it can be maintained at the most optimum high temperature during frying leading to lower oil absorption, obviously adds very little saturated and trans fats, and is very fry-stable against formation of oxidized polar compounds during frying. As claim support data, the advertiser provided literatures/review articles related to Palmolein. The advertiser did not provide Product composition details, Product Approval license, copy of product label, and copy of TVC, despite request from ASCI. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC complained against and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. As per the CCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in a recent judgement titled “Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India and Ors”, has affirmed and recognised the self-regulatory mechanism put in place by bodies like ASCI as an effective pre-emptive step to statutory provisions in the sphere of media regulation for TV and Radio programmes in India. The grievance redressal platform provided by self-regulatory bodies like ASCI, therefore, function as the first step for aggrieved consumers against content in the media which might not be in line with the existing laws. Furthermore, FSSAI has mandated ASCI to monitor advertising with misleading claims. Specific to the data submitted by the Advertiser, the main and scientifically acceptable material is the Review article by Suhaila Mohamed in "Trends in Food Science & Technology 35 (2014)pp114-128”. It recommends use of Palm Olein as a MUFA "To Help Inhibit Metabolic Syndrome,......." and also mentions that Consuming repeatedly heated oils causes post prandial inflammation which is a rider to the earlier statement of usefulness of Palmolin Acid. Nowhere is there any indication that one should consume more (zydah) palmolein for health which the TVC mentions. Also there is no disclaimer that the repeated heating should be avoided because it is highly undesirable because of the harm it causes. The vivid picturisation of deep fried food in the TVC is also likely to mislead the consumers in the absence of the above disclaimer. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Zyada Seyath” and “Zyada Fry” are misleading by exaggeration, implication and omission. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The claim, “Zyada Swaad” was considered as a generic statement. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Doctor Rice "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Sugar Free Rice 2. Doctor Rice 3. Diabetic Rice 4. 1st Time in India 5. Low GI Rice"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Andhra Jyoti) for their assistance in providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the grievances of the complainant to the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of response from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Sugar Free Rice”, “Doctor Rice”, “Diabetic Rice”, “Low GI Rice”, were not substantiated, with supporting clinical data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Claim, “1st Time in India”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data versus other similar products in the same category. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "K. Patel Phyto Extractions Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Dot Shot"

COMPLAINT:

"Helps to reduce inevitable side effects next morning post party - No laziness - No headache - No acidity - No body cramps"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. Advertiser submitted their written response prior to the due date. Advertiser states that there are sufficient scientific details published as research paper to prove their description for Curcumin which is used in their product. Curcumin maintains the nitric oxide level dramatically due to its potent antioxidant activity. Due to the said mechanism, it is ameliorating all symptoms associated with Sleep-Deprivation-Induced Behaviour Alteration (SDIBA) like laziness, headache, acidity and body cramps. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Research Papers on SDIBA and inflammation and dyspepsia. Further, on the advertiser’s request, their representatives were also given personal hearing by ASCI, at which time ASCI requested the advertiser to provide evidence of presence of theracurmin in the product and clinical evidence of product efficacy. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted data pertaining to Theracurmin and its bioavailability and a certificate from the supplier granting their permission to use the product claim. The CCC noted that while data was shared for Theracurmin which appears to be a novel and nano form of Curcumin, the pack declarations do not correspond to this ingredient name / particle size. The advertiser did not submit any efficacy data pertaining to their specific product being advertised and references of studies pertaining to Theracurmin did not have statistically significant sample size to conclusively prove its benefits. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Helps to reduce inevitable side effects next morning post party - No laziness - No headache - No acidity - No body cramps”, were inadequately substantiated, and the claims “No laziness - No headache - No acidity - No body cramps” are misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Lion Dates Impex (P) Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Lion Dates Syrup"

COMPLAINT:

"Protects from dengue"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response through their Advertising Agency. Ad Agency states that the content of the TVC does not claim to protect from dengue, it only claims that the product strengthens immunity and that the strengthened immunity of the body helps fighting various diseases like dengue and other diseases. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made. The complaint was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Ad Agency’s response as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response is inadequate to defend the complaint. Since it specifically mentions DENGUE (as a preventable disease even though indirectly by increasing immunity along with other diseases), the CCC concluded that the claim, “Protects from dengue”, is a tall claim which was not substantiated with supporting scientific data and with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Hatsun Agro Product Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Arokya Curd"

COMPLAINT:

“Keeps fresh till the last drop”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the said claim is merely stating a generic benefit of a Zip Lock pouch. The primary benefit of a Zip Lock pouch is that, it will keep the contents inside fresh for a long time as it prevents oxidization. As this response was inadequate, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit Soft copy of the product packaging/product label and to indicate the shelf life of the product once it has been opened. No response was received from the Advertiser in time for the meeting. The CCC noted that while zip lock provides air tight seal, for a perishable item like curd, a claim of lasting freshness is incorrect especially in absence of any reference to quantity, storage conditions and the time involved. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Keeps fresh till the last drop”, was false and misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Nirmal Kayaz "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"This claim is absurd. This gentleman can rid you of heart blockages (which includes 99% stenosis of your coronaries) through his magical Ayurveda alone. He even claims to cure you of cancer. Claims: 1.It treats chronic diseases and even cancer 2. Removes even 99% heart blockage in a few days by treating the patient by using 5000 years old siddha and ayurvedic remedy and medicine."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Cancer Item no.6- DMR Item no.8- Schedule J Heart Diseases Item no.26-DMR"

 

COMPANY: "Amomi Herbal Tablet"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Motape ka bina parhez aur exercise k safal upchar)Successful treatment for obesity without abstinence or exercise."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

""Obesity Item no.39- Schedule J Item no- 38-DMR""

 

COMPANY: "Wings IVF Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Implies cure for childlessness"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility in Women Item No.48 – DMR Act"

 

COMPANY:"Amandeep Hospital "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful treatment of varicose veins through advanced laser technique."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Varicose Veins Item No. 51 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Britannia Industries Ltd"
PRODUCT: "Britannia Nutrichoice Thin Arrowroot"

COMPLAINT:

“Thin Arrowroot”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"“The name 'Arrowroot' is misleading. I have been purchasing 'Britannia-Nutri choice thin arrowroot' for my kids for last more than five years. Just now I read the label and came to know that this product contains only 0.12% 0f arrowroot. It contains 70% refined wheat flour. They should not have used the name 'Arrowroot ' to this product. They cheated parent like me for so many years. We believed in the name without reading label. I request Advertisement standard council to take exemplary action against this brand and make them apologize.”"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was examined by the CCC on the basis of the materials available then and an exparte decision was taken. Further, the advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI, and subsequently, they submitted their written response which was taken into consideration for review of the CCC recommendations. Advertiser states that Thin Arrowroot is neither a brand name nor a product claim. It is a nomenclature used for a certain type of biscuits. In Thin Arrowroot biscuits, a carefully chosen combination of Arrowroot and Corn Starch (thickening agents), is used to deliver the perfect texture and bite to the biscuit. As the ingredient “Arrowroot” is emphasized in the name of the product - Britannia Nutrichoice Thin Arrowroot, the advertiser has declared its percentage as per the requirement of the FSSAI (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. As claim support data, the advertiser provided list of brands of Thin Arrowroot biscuits, and Nielsen Certification recognizing Arrowroot as a distinct segment within biscuits. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the advertiser has provided rationale for the reference to “Arrowroot” in the product name and has also provided its quantitative declaration on pack. The advertiser does not appear to make any health-related claims using that name. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the packaging claim, “Thin Arrowroot”, is not misleading. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review."

 

COMPANY:"Maxis Communication"
PRODUCT: "Aircel"

COMPLAINT:

“249; unlimited local calls, 500 MB data for 28 days (Unltd Aircel calls, Oth network capping daily 200, weekly 1000 mins)”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad - SMS. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that in view of the capping for other networks of daily 200 minutes, weekly 1000 minutes, the claim, “249; unlimited local calls” is misleading. The advertisement – SMS contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Mars International India P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Snickers chocolate"

COMPLAINT:

“Free Rs. 20 paytm cash with Snickers”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Till recently Snickers was available at an MRP of Rs. 35. The price has been increased to Rs. 40 and concurrently an offer of Free Rs. 20 paytm cash with Snickers is being offered to consumers. This offer/advertisement is not truthful and honest as it is not really 'free' because it is not being offered at the existing price of Rs. 35. The cost of the offer is being recovered by the increase in price. This advertisement amounts to misleading the consumers that they are getting something 'free' when it is not (Section 1.1 and 1.4 of Chapter-I of ASCI guidelines).”"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the price increase for the product in question and the consumer promotion with PayTM were independently recommended internally in year 2016. The documents do not, in any manner refer to any mechanism, proposal or even intention for passing along the cost of the promotion to the consumer. Furthermore, promo and non-promo stocks were available to the consumer simultaneously during the first month. As claim support data, the advertiser provided samples of the relevant SKU (Snickers 50g bar at INR 40) without the consumer promo offer, and pack shots of the product in question before and after the price increase and with/without the promo. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim offer, “Free Rs. 20 paytm cash with Snickers” being offered on the product with MRP of Rs.40/- is not misleading. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vodafone India Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Vodafone SuperNet 4G"

COMPLAINT:

“Adding a tower every hour to give you a stronger signal”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Complaint no.1 (TV Commercial) A tower every hour and Video Conferencing. Vodafone is not able to provide good network in Karnataka since the day i have taken their connection and they lie that they have a tower coming every hour. I tell them there is problem in outdoor coverage they there is no tower. They do not collaborate with other providers. Complaint no.2 (TV Commercial) In the latest advertisement of Vodafone telecom. it says that they add a tower every hour. its fake The latest advertisement says the Vodafone telecom add a new tower every hour. it’s fake. i want to lodge a complaint against this Complaintno.3 (TV Commercial) “Claiming to ""adding a tower every hour"" After several attempts at contacting Vodafone about their claim of ""adding a tower every hour"" they have failed to provide any information about the matter leaving me no choice but to lodge a complaint to get the information I seek to know about the advertisement. https://shop.vodafone.in/shop/postpaid/supernet4g.jsp“ Complaint no.4 (YouTube Advertisement) Vodafone claims Getting even better every day by adding a tower every hour. Based on October 2016 - January 2017. https://youtube.com/watch?v=PhjavasSggM https://shop.vodafone.in/shop/postpaid/supernet4g.jsp Adding a site per hour is impossible so October 2016 to January 2017 123 days so 123 x 24 so 2952 new sites added? Site added mean just added a plan to new site or site constructed & activated?"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that factually the roll-out of Vodafone SuperNet™ 4G towers/sites are more than six towers/sites per hour and the same has been validated by an external agency. Advertiser submitted an independent audit certificate showing detailed report of Circle wise breakup of tower/site Roll out for the period Oct'16-Jan'17. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Adding a tower every hour to give you a stronger signal”, has been substantiated as per information provided in the qualifier “Based on number of sites rolled out by Vodafone between October 2016 – January 2017”. The complaints were NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"J. K. Shah Classes"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"a) India's no.1 CA & CS coaching class b) 1st Choice of all CA & CS students c) National level Best faculties d) A total of 1221 All India Rankers including 289 All India CPT/Foundation/PE-1 Rankers since 2001 e) Your one visit to JKSC can change your fortune."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The newspaper advertisement is for coaching for CA, CS, CPT, etc. On what basis and parameters JK shah classes are claiming to be India's No.1 CA & CS coaching class? What is the proof of their claim to be the 1st choice of ALL CA & CS students? Do they have any comparison of the faculty members of other institutes which proves that JK shah classes have the best faculty in India? Can they provide proper record, data, substantiation and third party proof of the results that they have claimed? Why they are publicizing such old results more than 15 years old results? Is merely one visit to their institute can change any one's fortune? Isn't this a very exaggerated and fake claim? All these claims by JK shah classes are fake, misleading and exaggerated to attract students. Please ask them to substantiate these claims with proper data and if they can't do it, they should stop the advertisement immediately."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that every year they teach 15000+ CA students and 2200+ CS students at all levels for All Subjects. They have produced 1231 All India Rankers in CA Exams since 2001, and 100+ faculties are associated with them full time. Sheer number of enrolments every year leads to their conclusion that they are 1st choice of any student pursuing CA / CS. The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about the performance of their students, but the advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claims made by them. The CCC concluded that the claims, “India's no.1 CA & CS coaching class”, “1st Choice of all CA & CS students”, “National level Best faculties”, were not substantiated with any verifiable, authentic comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove these claims. Claim, “A total of 1221 All India Rankers including 289 All India CPT/Foundation/PE-1 Rankers since 2001”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data. Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim, “Your one visit to JKSC can change your fortune”, was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Made Easy Institute"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Please check website of made easy and IES master coaching classes. They both have published names of topper of gate 2017. Both institutes claim to have 1st 4 toppers from their tutors. When saw it on website, got confused, which one is true. . Please see to it at your earliest. "

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the names of topper of GATE 2017 reflected on their website are genuine and real as these aspirants have been the students of Made Easy and they have obtained the guidance from their Institute. The CCC noted that the Advertiser makes assertions regarding the toppers being their students; However, they did not provide any evidence such as details of enrollment/registration forms, receipt of fees paid, etc., to prove that the four toppers – Mridul Mishra, Puneet Khanna, Ankur Tripathi, and Chirag Mittal were students of Made Easy Institute. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the advertiser claiming that these four toppers were from their coaching institutes was not substantiated with authentic evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 4d of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs (“Testimonial of toppers in an Advertisement shall be from students who have participated in testimonied program, exams or subject only from the advertising institute.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"IES Master "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Please check website of made easy and IES master coaching classes. They both have published names of topper of gate 2017. Both institutes claim to have 1st 4 toppers from their tutors. When saw it on website, got confused, which one is true. Please see to it at your earliest."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response through their Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the advertiser argues that ASCI does not have any power, jurisdiction and authority to entertain complaints against them. Further, in response to the complaint, the advocate states that all those 4 candidates have been enrolled in various modules of their client's institute after paying requisite fee and have endorsed and praised the quality of services rendered by their client. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advocate’s response. As per the CCC, the advertiser has not referred to the Government portal gama.gov.in, wherein the role of ASCI in addressing complaints against misleading advertisements has been outlined. The CCC noted that while the advertiser makes assertions regarding the toppers being their students, they did not provide any evidence such as details of enrollment/registration forms, receipt of fees paid, etc., to prove that the four toppers – Mridul Mishra, Puneet Khanna, Ankur Tripathi, and Chirag Mittal were students of IES Master. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the advertiser claiming that these four toppers were from their coaching institutes was not substantiated with authentic evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and Clause 4d of ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs (“Testimonial of toppers in an Advertisement shall be from students who have participated in testimonied program, exams or subject only from the advertising institute.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Vodafone India Ltd."
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Rs.328 + Unlimited Local / STD Calls for 28 days. Limited to 300 Mins / Day”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the Ad – SMS and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that with regard to the 300 minutes talk time given as unlimited offer, it is not out of place to mention that the benefits viz 300 Min (5 hours per day) talk time is far in excess of the talk time used by average individual subscribers for whom the intended plan is offered. The talk time offered under this plan is 300 minutes per day, which is 20 times higher than the average MOU of a customer in Rajasthan, which is approximately 12 minutes per day. Thus the plan is certainly ‘unlimited’ by nature. The complete details of the offer/plan are covered in T&C which is accessible to the customers any time he wants to refer to them. This is clearly referred to in the SMS text in dispute. The CCC concluded that in view of the limit of 300 minutes / day as mentioned in the Ad – SMS, the claim, “Rs.328 + Unlimited Local / STD Calls for 28 days”, is misleading. The Ad – SMS contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers (“A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make qualifications, or resolve ambiguities, to explain the claim in further details, but should not contradict the material claim made or contradict the main message conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary meaning of the words used in the claim as received or perceived by a consumer.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Reliance Communications Ltd"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Truly Unlimited Local + STD calls only on RC 152 28 days”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad - SMS. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Truly Unlimited Local + STD calls only on RC 152 28 days”, is not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement – SMS contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code as well as Clause 1 of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"National Academy of Event Management & Development"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Recorded in Limca Book of Records - NAEMD is Asia’s First & Best Institute for Event Management” “Best Institute for Event Management - Asia Education Summit & Awards 2017”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"I visited the institute as I was not clear about many issues mentioned in the Ad. When I sought replies they were evasive and uncooperative. I felt their Ad was misleading and hence I draw your attention to this Ad. The main issues which puzzled me are: - 1) The use of the word best institute in Asia, they were not able to explain why and also claimed they won the Asia Education Summit & Awards 2017, but I wonder who are these people, are they authorized to certify, are they government recognized, was a research done, were the other institutes involved in this research and how can they declare one single institute as Asia's best. 2) They claim a Limca Book Record as Asia's First & Best Event Institute but when I asked to show the proof they did not show me the original certificate. 3) They have announced MBA and BBA programs but their Ad does not mention the concerned University. I feel this institute owes an explanation to what they write in their Ad. Could you please take up the issue with them as they refuse to answer me but will definitely answer you?"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that Bharathiar University is a UGC recognised State University and NAEMD is a Partner Institute of the said University. Advertiser asserts that Limca Book of Record has recorded NAEMD as “Asia’s First & Best Event Management Institute” in its record book. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of certificates of Asia Education Summit & Awards 2017 and Limca Book of Records. The CCC noted that while the advertiser has provided a certificate of Limca Book of Records for being Asia’s first and Best Event Management Institute, it pertains to only the institute being Asia’s first institute to offer “UGC recognised university degree and diploma in Event Management and PR”. The advertisement does not give reference to this aspect in the advertisement. Advertiser did not provide a list of other Event Management institutes in India / Asia with the date/year of their establishment to justify the claim of them being First Institute in Asia offering the said courses. The criteria of “UGC recognized university” was considered irrelevant for claiming any Asia-wide ranking. In the absence of appropriate documentary evidence, the CCC concluded the claim, “Asia's First & Best Event Management Institute”, and reference to Limca Book of records was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. While the advertiser provided certificate of Asia Education Summit & Awards 2017, the Advertiser did not provide the details of the process of how the selection for award was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar applicants that were part of the survey and the outcome, etc. In the absence of such details, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Institute for Event Management - Asia Education Summit & Awards 2017”, was not substantiated. The claim is also misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"TVS Motor Company Limited"
PRODUCT:"TVS Jupiter"

COMPLAINT:

"Attractive Finance Schemes Available## “100% Finance#” “Lowest EMI of Rs.999#” “Attractive Interest Rate of 6.99%#”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"As per advertising for tvs they are providing 100% finance which is not possible because none of dealer are giving 100 % finance option. Plus with false promise of 999* emi per month which is not possible. https://www.tvsjupiter.com/price L&t @ interest of 10.99-panvel 11.99,-nerul 13.99 –sanpada Tvs credits. @ interest of 6.99 for 12 month only with 25k dp. Plus emi was 2395 rs something. We find out with all showroom in navi mumbai.but none of the showroom offer 100% finance scheme. Plus emi of 999* which is not possible @ rate of interest of 6.99. Because loan is provided for min 3 & max 5 yrs. With all calculation i could not found how they are giving 999 emi option. If i take it for 5yrs also then also i have to pay emi of 1200 (+419 of interest per month) We went to panvel showroom. We discussed this with showroom that company is offering such scheme they said that ad is fake just to lure customer. How its possible. Plus company mention that it is available at selected location company must mention location to get much higher sale with not company listed location. Its serious misuse of advertising luring the customer. Wasting important time. Really upset with tvs. As i talk with customer care they also said they are giving 100% finance which is not true. Still i don't know what is they myth behind 999*emi option i will like to find it out with your kind support & need to take strict action against such advertising for luring customer. Plus i need scooty jupiter zx from company in that scheme. This are the following dealers approached by us for 100% finance offer by tvs. 1.Priyanka TVS Plot.No.43, Industrial Co.Lmt, Opposite Garden Hotel, Old Mumbai-Pune Highway, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410206 2.Shree Sai TVS Showroom (TALKED OVER PHONE FOR FINANCE BUT NONE SCHEME IS AVAILABLE) Shop No. 1&2, Laksh Building, Plot No. 187,, Sector 12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400705 3.Aryan Bike Point. Gaondevi Marg, Sector 20, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400706. 4.Victor Motors. Plot No 53,Shop No 1,, Sector 5, Sanpada, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400705"

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that the customer (complainant) did visit their showroom; However he was not able to produce all the required documents (IT return & House ownerships records) in the name of a single applicant, which are required for availing the loan. Further in response to the complaint, Advertiser states that in the period of Nov 2016 till March 2017, there are about 700+ people logged in for 100% finance scheme. They have communicated that the finance schemes are valid in select geographies only and that there are conditions to be fulfilled to avail these. As claim support data, the advertiser provided list of 100 customers from across India who have availed 100% finance scheme on Jupiter including the list of customers who have availed the scheme in Mumbai. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim offer, “100% Finance#”, “Lowest EMI of Rs.999#”, “Attractive Interest Rate of 6.99%#”, subject to terms and conditions were substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Rajam Industries Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Oorvasi Detergent Cake"

COMPLAINT:

“No.1 Detergent”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"This Complaint is against the claim of “No.1 Detergent” made by the Advertiser on the pack of the Product, which is blatantly false, misleading and unsubstantiated. The claim of No. 1 Detergent implies absolute superiority of the Advertiser’s Product against all detergent products, including powders, liquid in addition to cakes. The Advertiser should be put to strict proof to substantiate the claim of No.1 detergent with respect to Quality or Sales through independent performance testing and market share (volume) data respectively, against all available detergent competitor brands. The claim of No. 1 Detergent is also not qualified by any disclaimer making it ambiguous, as it does not specify if the same refers to absolute superiority in terms of quality or sales of the Product."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the product packaging. The advertiser did not submit any market leadership data and any data regarding product efficacy or it’s superiority versus other marketed products. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Detergent”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The product packaging contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Management Development Institute, Murshidabad"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"100% placement of first batch in 2016"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Objectionable material - ""100% placement of first batch in 2016"". 1. There is no material to sustain the claim. 2. No disclaimer has been made for the future. 3. The ad does not reveal the number of students in the first batch, and so it gives an impression that the batch was full and all the students were placed."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, "100% placement of first batch in 2016", was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Vaikunth Mehta National Institute Of Co-Operative Management"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Highly successful 100% placement in Private, NGOs, Public & Co-operative Organizations”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Objectionable material - ""Highly successful 100% placement in Private, NGOs, Public and Cooperative Organizations"". No material to sustain the claim"

Recommendation: UPHELD

""The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that due to constraints of space, they are not publishing the Placement details in the advertisement. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a summary of the Placement record of PGDM-ABM students (Batches 2013-15, 2014-16 & 2015-17). As this response was not exhaustive and was inadequate, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit additional data for verification. As claim support data, the advertiser subsequently provided the Batch size along with contact phone numbers of the students of PGDM-ABM 2013-15, 2014-16 and 2015-17 Batches. The CCC reviewed the data and concluded that the claim, “Highly successful 100% placement in Private, NGOs, Public & Co-operative Organizations”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic supporting data such as details of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD.""

 

COMPANY:"Krupajal Group of Institutions"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Your Placement is Guaranteed”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"Objectionable material - ""Your PLACEMENT is Guaranteed"" No material is there to sustain this claim"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Your Placement is Guaranteed”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data and is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of management & research"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Placements one of the best in the industry"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, "Placements one of the best in the industry", was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data and is misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Bhanwar Rathore Design Studio"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"a) 1734 BRDS students selected (138 in NID, 495 in NIFT, 92 in CEPT, 146 in UID, 68 in PEARL, 22 in IIT, 685 in NATA, & 87 in GLS) (b) Highest selection record from BRDS as compared to any coaching institute in India c) BRDS is the only institute which publishes yearwise results in Newspapers d) Faculty are NID / NIFT / CEPT Alumni."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"The results and other claims by Bhanwar Rathore Design Studio, Ahmedabad in the newspaper advertisement are without any proper information like the year of result, admission to which courses /stream in the mentioned exams. The list of these 1734 students are also not given. If we add all the break-up result numbers of different exams the total is 1733 instead of 1734 which is claimed in the ad. Do they have proper data, records and any reputed third party validation to prove their result? How can they say about highest selection record compared to any coaching institute in India? Do they the comparison data of all other coaching institutes to prove this claim? Their claim of BRDS is the only institute which publishes yearwise results in Newspapers is also very exaggerated and misleading. Can they prove that no other coaching institute publish their results? What is the proof of claiming that their faculty are NID/NIFT/CEPT alumni? They have not given any detail and list of those. All these claims by BRDS is very vauge, misleading and exaggerarted to attract students. Please ask them to substantiate these claims with proper data and if they can't do it, they should stop the advertisement immediately.”"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “1734 BRDS students selected (138 in NID, 495 in NIFT, 92 in CEPT, 146 in UID, 68 in PEARL, 22 in IIT, 685 in NATA, & 87 in GLS)”, and “Faculty are NID / NIFT / CEPT Alumni”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Claims, “Highest selection record from BRDS as compared to any coaching institute in India” and “BRDS is the only institute which publishes year-wise results in Newspapers”, were not substantiated with verifiable comparative data versus other similar institutes, and are misleading by exaggeration. 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 UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Amazon.com, Inc "
PRODUCT:"Gits Instant Dahivada Snack Mix"

COMPLAINT:

"“Product selling on Amazon with fake mrp. Original mrp is ?65. Link :Gits Instant Dahivada Snack Mix, 200g https://www.amazon.in/dp/B000N4B7FA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_IqE3yb50WKB32. I am attaching screenshot and link . Gits link(Original manufacturer of product) : http://www.gitsfood.com/dahivada.html Amazon link of fake MRP : Gits Instant Dahivada Snack Mix, 200g https://www.amazon.in/dp/B000N4B7FA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_tcr5yb26G4P1C ”"

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. Amazon was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. Amazon did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from Amazon prior to the due date for this complaint. Complainant provided evidence of the actual MRP of the product (Rs.65) at which it is being sold. Based on the evidence provided by the complainant, the CCC concluded that the price offer “MRP 130.00 Price 67.00 You Save 63.00 (48%)” of Gits Instant Dahivada Snack Mix 200g in the advertisement is false and misleading. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Chahal hair Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Effective Treatment of all problems related to hair like baldness”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. The advertiser did not provide details of the treatment for hair problems. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Effective Treatment of all problems related to hair like baldness”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data, in particularly about baldness and is misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Ayurwin Pharma Pvt Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Nutrislim Plus Range Of Products"

COMPLAINT:

"“1. Now it’s very easy to be slim. 2. Approved by Ayush Dept.” - misleading by implication that claims are approved by AYUSH”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the advertisement. The CCC noted that while the product may have been approved for manufacturing by the licensing authorities, no evidence was provided that Ayush Department has permitted the advertiser for them to use their name for advertising purpose. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Now it’s very easy to be slim”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data and evidence of “ease of slimming” with the advertised product. Claim, “Approved by Ayush Dept.”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by ambiguity and implication that Ministry of AYUSH has approved the product efficacy. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic – Dr. Batras Homeopathic Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Worlds largest chain of Homeopathy clinic”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that currently they have clinics in India, Bangladesh, GCC and the UK. The total number of clinics as on date stands at 228. The said claim is made based on the assessment by American Quality Assessors, the mention made by Mr. Stefan Ecks in his book “Eating Drugs: Psychopharmaceutical Pluralism in India” regarding Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd. being the largest in the business and the declaration by Lancet about Dr. Batra’s being the largest homoeopathic chain of clinics, amongst others. As this response was considered to inadequate, ASCI further requested the advertiser to submit the referred documents. As claim support data, the advertiser subsequently provided the assessment by American Quality Assessors, the assertion by Mr. Stefan Ecks and the declaration by Lancet. The CCC reviewed the data and noted that the reference by Mr Stefan Ecks was pertaining to the number of Dr Batra’s clinics in India (99 in year 2012) and the (undated) assessment by American Quality Assessors referred to 127 clinics in India. The CCC concluded that the claim, “World’s largest chain of Homeopathy clinic”, was not substantiated with authentic comparative worldwide data versus other similar clinics or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Organic India Private Limited"
PRODUCT:"Organic Honey"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Our certified Organic Honey is naturally complete with healthful Minerals and Vitamins. 2. This good nectar is sustainably harvested and collected in the purest way from the Himalayan region where the flowers are not sprayed with chemicals."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that the product ‘honey’ marketed by them is certified organic. Honey naturally contain minerals and vitamins. It is collected from areas in Pauri Garhwal, in Uttrakhand located in Himalayan region and being certified organic, honey is natural and without pesticides. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of FSSAI license, Scope certificate, Nutritional facts about honey, and Label of the product. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that accreditation Number of the Certification Agency is not depicted in the advertisement. The advertiser is procuring Honey from a Uttarakhand based manufacturer who has obtained FSSAI License for the manufacturing of “Organic Honey”. The CCC noted that there was a discrepancy in the name of the advertised product, product mentioned in the Scope Certificate and that mentioned in the FSSAI licence. The Claim “Organic” was not substantiated for the advertised product. As honey comes from flower`s nectar, honey procured non-organically will not differ from the organic one in terms of vitamin and minerals content. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Our certified Organic Honey is naturally complete with healthful Minerals and Vitamins” is misleading by implication. Furthermore, it was not clearly established as to how the honey collection was made exclusively from flowers that were not sprayed with chemicals. Claim, “The good nectar is sustainably harvested and collected in the purest way from the Himalaya region where flowers are not sprayed with chemicals” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Shree Shyam Chemical Industry Roller Flour & Rice Mills"
PRODUCT:"Dalmia Gold Chakki Fresh Atta"

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to have iron and vitamin."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that their product contains vitamin and iron. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the FSSAI license, copy of the product packaging, Mitra S K Tax Invoice for test conducted on Dalmia Gold Chakki Fresh Atta, and Test report giving analysis of Dalmia Gold Chakki Fresh Atta vs FSSAI standards issued by Mitra SK Pvt Ltd. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC noted that the test report is giving quantified results for Moisture, crude fibre, Gluten content, Ash content, Granularity as against standards. But the fortification of Iron, folic acid and vitamin A are not quantified as per standards. Test report only says that they are present as detected by qualitative methods. The claim on iron and vitamin fortification of atta was not substantiated with a quantified test report confirming the iron and vitamin content, and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"CavinKare Pvt. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Cavins milk shake"

COMPLAINT:

"The advertisement details a mom giving a son milk to drink, the son pours the milk outside the window/ in the cats milk bowl etc. The advertisement is telecast on children channel like chutti tv, kochu tv. It misguides kids to not drink milk and drink flavoured milk. Pouring milk outside/ for plants is guiding kids to do the same.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek a personal hearing and submitted their written response. Advertiser states that the TV commercial is showing only a Brown liquid and not a white liquid and when they checked the Tamil version they have made the required modification. Advertiser provided a copy of revised TVC. As the advertiser’s response was not considered adequate for consideration under "Informal resolution", the advertiser was requested to furnish their response for CCC deliberations. No response was received from the Advertiser in time for the meeting. The CCC viewed the TVC and concluded that the visual showing the boy throwing away milk in the plant pot, and in the cat’s milk bowl, and the mother saying “Ab boring regular milk ko bye kahiye, healthy aur tasty Cavin’s Milkshake dijiye”, disparages milk and suggests that Cavin’s Milkshake is a better food option. The TVC contravened Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages Clause # 3 (“Advertisements should not disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options”) The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Mead Johnson Nutrition (India) Pvt. Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Enfagrow A+"

COMPLAINT:

"A quarter page print advertisement on February 27th 2017 in India’s leading newspaper Times of India of Enfagrow A+ Stage 4 nutritional milk power for 2 years and above, product claim to have highest DHA and other nutrients that support brain development. The advertisement also mentions the names of leading e marketing websites and chemist shops where the product is available. These websites include Amazon.in, Firstcry.com and babyoye.com. Med Plus, Fortis Healthcare, Apollo and Spenser’s are among the chemist shops promoted in the Advertisement. On approaching these websites and chemist shops it was found that infant formula and food for children below 2 years of age with similar packaging and brand name is also being sold. Enfagrow Infant Formula by Mead Johnson Penetrate Indian Baby Food Market via Cross Promotion. The promotional strategies of baby food companies are becoming clever day by day. Companies use every opportunity to break the spirit of the legislations that protects mothers and babies from commercial influence. Top baby food companies are found to be creating deceptive advertisements to mislead mothers/families. In India under the The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 and the Amendment Act 2003 (IMS Act) promotion of baby food and feeding bottles for children upto 2 years is banned. Enfagrow (leading infant and toddler food brand) by Mead Johnson is found to be deceptively promoting its infant formula for children under 2 years through cross promotion. Mead Johnson Nutrition has resorted to promotional techniques, which are projected as to market follow on formula and not infant formula directly. Recent example is a quarter page print advertisement on February 27th 2017 in India’s leading newspaper Times of India of Enfagrow A+ Stage 4 nutritional milk power for 2 years and above, product claim to have highest DHA and other nutrients that support brain development. The advertisement also mentions the names of leading e marketing websites and chemist shops where the product is available. These websites include Amazon.in, Firstcry.com and babyoye.com. Med Plus, Fortis Healthcare, Apollo and Spenser’s are among the chemist shops promoted in the Advertisement. On approaching these websites and chemist shops it was found that infant formula and food for children below 2 years of age with similar packaging and brand name is also being sold. The World Health Assembly adopted the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981 after it was recognized that marketing practices of baby food industry undermines breastfeeding and infant and young child feeding practices. Guidance document on ending the inappropriate marketing of foods for infants and young children in WHA 69/7 resolution states that there should be no cross promotion to indirectly promote breastmilk substitutes via promotion of foods for infants and young children up to the age of 36 months. Cross-promotion by definition (also called brand crossover promotion or brand stretching) is a form of marketing promotion where customers of one product or service are targeted with promotion of a related product. This can include packaging, branding and labelling of a product to closely resemble that of another (brand extension). In this context, it can also refer to use of particular promotional activities for one product and/or promotion of that product in particular settings to promote another product.1 This is a clear case of cross promotion and violates the spirit of IMS Act in India. Studies all over showed that use of infant formula is harmful to infant health. Such inappropriate cross promotion of breastmilk substitutes and commercial complementary foods and beverages for infants and young children has been undermining progress in optimal infant and young child feeding. This should be stopped in the interest of our Nations infants and mothers."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: NOT UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI at which time the advertiser submitted packs of both the products (Enfamil A+ and Enfagrow A+). The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that there are no direct or indirect clues or cues in the advertisement which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for any other infant food product, including the MJN's brand of infant formulae ( Enfamil A+). The brand name for infant formula is completely different (Enfamil A+) from Enfagrow A+. The CCC viewed both the products packaging and noted that Enfamil A+ is an instant formula for infants upto 6 months, and Enfagrow A+ is a nutritional milk powder for children 2 years and above. The CCC concluded that both the products are not similar to each other. The complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "United Biscuits P. Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Mcvities Whole wheat Marie"

COMPLAINT:

“McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie” “Wheat Flour (50.9%), Whole Wheat Flour (10.9%)”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"I purchased a pack of Mcvities Whole Wheat marie only to be shocked to see the ingredients at the back of the back to contain 50.9% Wheat Flour (Maida) and only 10.9% Whole Wheat Flour. The product called "Wholewheat" marie contains only 10% of the actual ingredient. Extremely disappointed as such a reputed brand is writing incorrect information on the pack to attract the consumers. Biscuit benefit highlighted not correct."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI at which time they submitted their written response. Advertiser also informed that McVities has a regular Marie variant (without whole wheat). Whole wheat is a variant and logo unit is trademarked. The CCC viewed the product packaging and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser states that Wholewheat has been used as part of branding to suggest and build awareness among the consumers about ""McVities Wholewheat Marie"" biscuits being made of whole wheat flour as key ingredient besides wheat flour (maida). The brand has been coined to mean that wholewheat is essentially, fundamentally, basically and in essence a key ingredient of McVities Wholewheat Marie biscuits. The branding is an effective way of communicating to the consumers that product has whole wheat (wholewheat flour) as a key ingredient. The branding is meant to suggest to the customer that the product is a differentiated product from regular Marie products. As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of TM certificates, product label, product sample, and Extracts of the book “Nutritive Value of Indian Foods”. The CCC noted that “Whole Wheat Marie” does not appear to be an established or recognized industrywide category name. The predominant ingredient in the product is maida (50.9%) and the content of Wholewheat flour is 10.9%. The product nomenclature is likely to mislead consumers regarding the contents. The CCC concluded that in the context of a biscuit having maida as predominant ingredient the packaging claim, “McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The product packaging contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"United Breweries Ltd"
PRODUCT:"Kingfisher"

COMPLAINT:

"Stop liquor advertising in IPL 2017. all recent cricket test matches played in India. All advertisements during latest cricket test series. Now ads of liquor would be telecast like soap & oil. Take a look at @kingfisherworld's Tweet: https://twitter.com/kingfisherworld/status/849638545979580417?s=08 sir do we need any more proof"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser representatives did not seek personal hearing. The CCC also noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the twitter advertisement. The CCC noted that the twitter advertisement is for the product “packaged drinking water”. The Advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of the product/service advertised. Based on the reference to 2017 Cricket Edition, the CCC concluded that the advertisement depicting the Kingfisher Premium brand name is a surrogate advertisement for promotion of a liquor product – Kingfisher Premium Beer. The advertisement is misleading by implication and contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6(b) of the ASCI Code (“Whether there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted by this Code.”) Also, the Ad did not meet the requirements as per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code (“Whether the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted.”). The complaint was UPHELD."

 

COMPANY:"Dindayal Aushadhi "
PRODUCT:"Original 303 Capsules "

COMPLAINT:

"Claims: 1. Energy and Passion in your married life. 2. Fulfil the expectations of your life partner Complaint: “Aphrodisiac and sexual stimulant type claims” The visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims 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: "Dr. Dhiraj Patel - Khodiyar Ayurved"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims: 1. Childless couples who are tired of taking medicines now need not feel dejected. 2. Gents with low sperm count get guaranteed relief with ayurvedic medicines 3. We have given guaranteed relief to couples who have not had children after 11 years of marriage and after trying for test tube babies thrice. 4. Written money-back guarantee on stamp paper to patients."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"1. What are the qualifications of Dr. Dhiraj Patel to make such exaggerated claims? 2. How long does it take for this treatment to show results? 3. Are there any side effects of this treatment? 4. Is the treatment done under the supervision of a qualified doctor? 5. Can any person with any medical condition undergo this treatment? Would they require doctor’s permission or supervision? 6. These claims are very misleading and can lead to health dangers."

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "Speed Height Capsule"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Good height makes career bright 2. Go ahead with more than double speed"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

"How does the product claim “Go Ahead with more than double speed?? What is meant by this? 1. How much height is increased by consuming this product? 2. Upto what age can the product be used for height increase 3. Height is hereditary and depends on genes of the person. How does the product defy this scientific principle? 4. Has the product been approved by any National/International Regulatory Authority? 5. Has the results been confirmed by an Independent Agency? 6. How long does it take for product to show results? What conditions are required for this? 7. How long does the effect lasts? What conditions are required for this? 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?"

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Stature of persons Item No.47- DMR Schedule Improvement in height of children/adults Item No. 29- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY:"Speed Height Capsule"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims: 1. Good height makes career bright 2. Go ahead with more than double speed Complaint same as above"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Stature of persons Item No.47- DMR Schedule Improvement in height of children/adults Item No. 29- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Zee Laboratories Ltd."
PRODUCT:"Brexelant"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Growth and shaping Breast Cream 2. Claims are of- Bust enhancement. 3. The advertisement provides link to website which refers to “Firming, Lifting and Enhancing- Bust”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Form and Structure of female bust Item no. 21- DMR Act,1954 Form and structure of the breast Item no. 19- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Shree Maruti Herbals"
PRODUCT:"Stay-On Oral Liquid"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to give charging for new happy moments. 2. The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. 3. The advertisement provides link to website which refers to “making love”, “Kamasutra”, boosting libido”"

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 Maruti Herbals"
PRODUCT:"Stay-On Power Capsule"

COMPLAINT:

"1. The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. 2. The advertisement mentions the product web-site which claims -""….Countless number of people have, rediscovered, the lost joy, back in their interpersonal relationship. Premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, lack of libido etc are all a distant memory"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Premature Ejaculation - Item no- 47- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Care and Cure Herbals"
PRODUCT:"Shots Xtra Time and Desire Capsules and Gel for Men"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to be unmatched formula for energy and capacity. 2. For Beautiful moments of love 3. The visual in the Ad read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement 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: "Positive Homeopathy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Get rid of kidney stones through homeopathy treatment 2. Increase In Fertility"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J Sterility In Women- Item No 48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "Divyatej Ayurvedic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Get rid of deafness permanently through ayurvedic specialist"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Deafness Item no. 8- DMR Schedule Item no. 13- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Dr Tomar Ayur Spine Care & Panchkarma Center"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to treat incurable diseases from roots through ayurvedic medicines and panchkarma – White Spots, lack of sperm, impotence"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Sexual Impotence Item no.45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J Leucoderma Item No. 33- DMR Schedule Item No. 35- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Medikom Healthcare & Ayurvedic Centre"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Boon for people people with sexual problems 2. Claims to get rid of sex weakness, premature ejaculation, nightfall, lack of time. loose nerves, small organ, sloppy organ, lack of sperm."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance Item no. 30- Schedule J Sexual Impotence, Premature Ejaculation Item no.45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J (includes Premature Ejaculation) Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Chetan Herbals "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Increase breast size, see the difference in 15 days. 2. Claims to make undeveloped and tightening small breast in shape, attractive and beautiful 3. The visual in the Ad implies that the product is meant for increase in size of female bust"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Form and Structure of female bust Item no. 21- DMR Act,1954 Form and structure of the breast Item no. 19- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Dr P K Jain Clinics"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Successful Treatment for Masculine weakness, Early Ejaculation, lack of sperm, Sexual debility, Lack of sex, loose organ, Sexual Weakness and Undeveloped male organs, Infertility"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J Improvement in size and shape of the sexual organ and in duration of sexual performance Item no. 30- Schedule J Sexual Impotence Item no.45- DMR Schedule Item no. 47-Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Rajput Clinic "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to provide satisfied treatment of masculine weakness. 2. Claims to increase height."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Stature of persons Item No.47- DMR Schedule Improvement in height of children/adults Item No. 29- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Ayushman Homeopathic Center"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Treatment for Diabetes, Blood Pressure and Cancer is possible. 2. Treatment without operation for Kidney Stone. 3. No need to bear pain of Arthritis. 4. Ultimate solution of all diseases, Ad refers to conditions of - Obesity, Female Diseases, increase in Height, Infertility in minimum cost"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Diabetes- Item no. 9- DMR Schedule Item no. 14 – Schedule J Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J Rheumatism Item no. 43- DMR Schedule Obesity Item No.39- Schedule J Item No.38- DMR Schedule High/Low Blood Pressure Item No.27- DMR Schedule Item No.25- Schedule J Female Diseases (in general) Item No.18- DMR Schedule Stature of persons Item No.47- DMR Schedule Improvement in height of children/adults Item No. 29- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Positive Homeopathy"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Permanent treatment for kidney stone problems through homeo [without operation]. 2. Best Solution for Infertility"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J Sterility in Women Item No.48- DMR Schedule"

 

COMPANY: "Arogyadham "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Obesity - Claims to get rid of excessive weight, shapeless body, cellulite."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Obesity Item No.38- DMR Schedule Item No.39- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Shree Dhanvantri Ayur Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"1. Get complete cure from piles, fistula & fissure through ayurveda kshara sutra procedure. 2. Get permanent cure for asthma, sexual dysfunctional through ayurveda panchkarma"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Piles and Fistulae Item no. 42- Schedule J Bronchial Asthma Item No. 7- Schedule J Maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure – Item no. 36 – Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Dr Batras Homeopathic Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to be sure, scientific successful treatment on one million of patients - baldness and vitiligo."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Change in colour of hair and growth of new hair. Item No. 10- Schedule J Leucoderma Item No. 33- DMR Schedule Item No. 35- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "Sri Jwala Ayurved Bhavan"
PRODUCT:"Sri Jwala Ayurved Bhavan"

COMPLAINT:

"1. Claims to be sure shot for piles. 2. Product name “Arshantak Set” implies cure for Piles."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"1. Claims to be sure shot for piles. 2. Product name “Arshantak Set” implies cure for Piles."

 

COMPANY: "Naik Hospital"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Shows baldness as indication and Claims to grow the natural hair from roots."

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Change in colour of hair and growth of new hair. Item No. 10- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "B K Stones and Urology Clinic"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Claims to be get freedom from stones"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"Kidney Stone Item No.22- DMR Schedule Item No.50- Schedule J"

 

COMPANY: "B Natural Pomegranate Juice"
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

"Fast Track complaint received against the TV Commercial of “ITC Limited - B Natural Pomegranate Juice”, which is said to have appeared on Zee News(*) on 8th April 2017, from Dabur India Limited(*). “In the aforesaid advertisement, a leading Bollywood actress is shown teaching a yoga class wherein she instructs all attendees to make pomegranate juice. She begins by blending pomegranate seeds, followed by boiling the concentrate in an open vessel which is then diluted with water. The actress goes on to say that most packaged juices are manufactured in this fashion, which have neither any taste nor any nutrition. The actress then distinguishes and promotes “B Natural’s 100% pomegranate juice which is made from the pulp of 25 pomegranates”. The ad ends with a display of a range of such “no concentrate” range of juices and the tag line- “Sirf juice, no excuse”. The TV commercial in question is evidently derogatory and completely misleading. The message contained in the commercial is a dubious attempt to mislead the consumer by drawing a misconceived comparison between the manufacturing process and imputing that the juices manufactured from fruit juice concentrate are not natural/ real juices or that the same do not offer the same level of nutrition and taste. The obvious attempt is to unleash a negative propaganda and indulge in generic disparagement of the product category, by suggesting that the juices manufactured through the thermal process are not natural or less nutritious. The aforesaid advertisement depicts that the fruit concentrate is prepared by boiling in an open pot which is incorrect and misleading. The fruit concentrate is actually produced by removal of water, under controlled conditions in a vacuum in specialized equipment, in order to retain its nutritional value whilst enhancing its shelf life. This process involves removal of water at a temperature (60-70°C) which is much lower than boiling temperature (100-110°C), thereby, retaining the nutritional and sensorial characteristics. The process is scientific and followed world over by fruit juice manufacturers. The commercial in question falsely suggests that the thermally processed juices are inferior or that the processing technology itself is inferior. The advertisement is further factually incorrect as the addition of water is not to dilute the concentrate but to reconstitute the fruit concentrate and get the right consistency of the product in consonance with the criteria laid down by CODEX, FSSAI etc. Annexed herewith is the Comparative Analytical study between commercial (both FC and NFC) and fresh home-made juices showing no significant difference in Nutritional value as Annexure 1. It is relevant to mention here that FSSAI (Reference Standard 2.3.6 – Thermally Processed Fruit Juice) recognises both types of methods for making juice - direct from fruit as well as reconstitution from concentrated juice. It should be noted that the standards say “...reconstitution with water suitable for the purpose of maintaining the essential composition and quality factors of the juice”. One needs to consider this while reconstituting the juice apart from meeting the minimum quality standards (TSS, Acidity etc.) defined by FSSAI. Thus, there is no point of dilution. Further, from a Nutritional perspective, analytical studies show no significant difference in Nutritional value of both types of commercial manufactured juices. According to a study published in Journal of food and Nutrition Sciences, 2016, (Annexure 1 attached) both types of commercial manufactured orange juices retains most of the nutrition as compared to fresh juice with no significant differences observed in Nutritional profile. Also, 100% fruit juices, whether made from concentrate or not, are widely recognised as a Nutritious offering which in turn , help bridge the dietary gap in fruit and vegetable intake (survey based study on fruits and vegetable intake, published as India’s Phytonutrient report, 2016 (Annexure 2 attached). Reputed organisations like European fruit juice association (AIJN) recommend 1 glass of 100% juice as 1 serve of fruits and vegetables each (Annexure 3 attached). So, the suggestive phrases “paani milakar patla karo, aur juice taiyaar”, “Ye to juice ke naam pe excuse hai” and “Naa Taste, na Nutrition” are not only factually inaccurate, the same are deliberate attempts to mislead the consumer and project the thermally processed juices as inferior. It is further submitted that the aforesaid advertisement seeks to portray its product as being 100% natural and nutritious, whereas the Complainant is confident that even the product in question must be prepared through pasteurization which involves heating of the concentrate at least 2 times, as per the Standard Aseptic technology of Tetra-Pak. In the last phase of the TV Commercial the manufacturer has grossly mislead by depicting the entire range, which is not even under the category of 100% juice. B Natural Guava, Mango & Litchi are Beverages as per the FSSAI norms.”"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Complainant as well as the Advertiser representatives were given the opportunity for personal hearing with the Technical expert and the ASCI Secretary General. The data submitted by the complainant and the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert. The FTCP reviewed the TVC and claims made therein and noted the Advertiser’s written response. The FTCC noted that the advertiser has depicted the process of “concentration” of juice in a manner which is easy to understand for the consumer. The advertiser has submitted report of a study that compares content of Vitamin C in Not from Concentrate (NFC) pomegranate juice and concentrate of pomegranate juice and reconstituted pomegranate juice i.e. From Concentrate (FC). The results indicate losses of Vitamin C in FC as compared to NFC. Whereas the complaint has not submitted any data to prove that there is no loss of nutrient such as Vitamin C in the FC juice. Neither Advertiser nor Complainant has submitted any data to show any taste study to compare taste of FC and NFC juice. The FTC Panel reviewed the packaging declaration of Dabur Real Fruit Power Pomegranate and observed that the product has 30% Pomegranate juice (Pomegranate juice as well as concentrate) in addition to sugar, liquid glucose, Aronia juice concentrate, acidity regulator, salt whereas ITC B Natural is 100 % Pomegranate juice. The FTCC concluded as follows - 1. The TVC depicts Open pot boiling (Ubalassana) - In absence of a disclaimer of this depiction being a “Creative visualization” of the actual process of making a concentrate, the FTCP considered this visual to be misleading by ambiguity. This complaint was UPHELD. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. 2. The FTCC did not consider the reference to “Concentrate mein Panni milakar patla karo” to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. 3. In view of majority of the marketed products being of “FC” category, the reference to “Jyadatar juice to aaise hi bante hai” was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. 4. Ye to Juice ke naam pe excuse hai – This was considered to be in the nature of a creative licence. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. 5. Na Taste, Na Nutrition – While the advertiser submitted data regarding superiority of NFC juice over FC / re-constituted juice in terms of content of Vitamin C, the FTCP considered the claim of “No Nutrition” and “No Taste” to be misleading by exaggeration. The advertiser did not submit any taste test results to support the claim of “No taste” and “No Nutrition”. These claims were not substantiated. This complaint was UPHELD. The TVC contravened Chapter I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. 6. “Made from fruit, not from concentrate” – As the NFC is 100% Pomegranate juice, this statement was considered to be factual. This complaint was NOT UPHELD."

 

COMPANY: "Protinex Grow "
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

 

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

Recommendation: UPHELD

"The Complainant as well as the Advertiser’s representatives were given a personal hearing with the Technical expert, Secretary General and the Chief Complaints Officer to present their case. The details of the complaint and the advertiser’s response was taken into consideration. The FTCP viewed the TVC and noted the Advertiser’s response. The FTCP did not consider the TVC to be denigrating to any particular brand. The reference to “Dus saal ki hone wali hun mujhe aap abhi tak bacchon wala health drink pila rahe hai” in the context of the advertisement, showing a family with a younger sibling, was considered as a creative licence. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. The claim of 50% more protein than other leading health drinks was substantiated. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. It was recommended that the advertiser should use the terminology consistently across the communication i.e. voice over as well as Super. The FTCP noted that the last frame of the TVC states Protinex Grow taaki badhne ka mauka miss na ho. While the TVC does not state that only 50% more protein contributes to growth, it is misleading by implication and omission of reference to other factors that contribute to growth such as heredity, exercise and balanced diet, etc. This complaint was UPHELD. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code and Clause 5 of the ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Food and Beverages. The disclaimers in the TVC were not as per ASCI Guidelines."

 
 

 

DID YOU KNOW?