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

Select Month :

 
ASCI Recommendations
 

COMPANY: Cheil India P. Ltd
PRODUCT: Samsung Refrigerators

COMPLAINT:

Samsung's says that they have introduced “the world’s first convertible refrigerator”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This is false. BPL had introduced convertible refrigerators way back in 2000 itself. Today BPL is no longer manufacturing refrigerators but Samsung cannot wrongly claim that it has introduced world's first convertible refrigerator

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser submitted evidence that it had created this technology and patented it earlier than the Complainant (BPL). Samsung's complete claim descriptor is "first smart convertible". The important marker of this "smartness" is one-touch technology for the inter-conversion. And also that Samsung's 2-fan technology is unique. The claim taken in its entirety is different from the more general claim of "first convertible". The CCC also noted that the Complainant has not given any information if the BPL refrigerator had "smart" features and also no detailed comparison between the two products. The CCC concluded that the claim that Samsung is “World’s first smart convertible refrigerator” is not false. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review.

 

COMPANY: K. Raheja Corp
PRODUCT: Shoppers Stop

COMPLAINT:

“Shoppers stop is proud to be ranked 25th in The Great Places To Work study 2015”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The supplement gives ranking of companies as determined by the study conducted by Great Place to work Institute, India. The Economic Times is the media partner. The advertisement states that Shoppers stop is proud to be ranked 25th in The Great Places To Work study 2015 whereas the ranking list given the supplement itself shows that it is at number 42. The advertisement does not give truthful information and is misleading.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and reviewed the details provided by the complainant. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Shoppers stop is proud to be ranked 25th in The Great Places To Work study 2015”, is false, was not substantiated and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Home Town
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Home Town – “Mano Ya Na Mano Sale - Flat 60% off* on everything”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

“This is how the marketing strategy works to lure customers to d shop... as a customer when one reads this signpost you believe that EVERYTHING in the store is on sale and at FLAT 60% off. However on entering... you realise that’s not the case... there are things which are between 10% to 60% off and also... there are things which just aren’t on sale.... The signpost is extremely mis-leading and by just putting an astrix next to the 60% on the board... the company thinks its fine to be this misleading As a consumer I understand if u have some items on sale at 10% and some more.... however what’s extremely putting off is that such a big company thinks its fine to be unethical and ok to mis-represent a sale which is supposed to be up to 60% off as Flat 60% off and also thinks that they can use the word EVERYTHING and yet expect consumers to be ok with some items not being on sale at all. What can I say more? Extremely poor…misleading marketing strategy.”

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser was requested to respond to the objections raised by the complainant as well as opportunity for personal hearing was granted. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim offer of “Flat 60% off* on everything”, is misleading by implication regardless of the disclaimer , as it mentions the words "Flat" and "on everything". The advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd
PRODUCT: Alive App

COMPLAINT:

“Download Alive app and get a free recharge Rs.50 Recharge from Paytm”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Download app and login with fb a/c then u get coupon code so u can Recharge from Paytm but they didn't give any code the cheated with me same Complaint have others who download it I read comment in the play store app I read advertisement 3-4 day ago and I download this app on the that day after 12 hours of download app I delete it because they not giving Recharge

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Download Alive app and get a free recharge Rs. 50 Recharge from Paytm”, is false and misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Zoom Car

COMPLAINT:

1st complaint- The ad describes how one women who has been recently married drives a different car every day. And then it goes on to say that dahej me mili hogi (must have got it in dowry) and then the immediate next thing is "how lucky" Zoom car ad on radio is promoting or encouraging or acknowledging that dowry is good. The ad States how one man thinks that his friends or acquaintances wife drives a different car each day and that she must have gotten it in dowry. And then goes on to say how lucky. Though the intent may be clear and they are trying to show good humour it just is distasteful to say in today's day and age that a person who gets dowry is lucky which means it's what people long for and is good. 2nd complaint- Friend 1 - This [XYZ person] is always going on a honeymoon every week. And every week he is going in a new car. One week Scorpio, one week Mercedes, etc. And his wife always drives the car. Friend 2 - He must have got it on 'dahej' (*Laughs*). Voice/Over - Get used to hearing these comments when you drive with Zoom Car 1) The fact that a woman is driving the car is in no way connected with the services the company is offering which is car rental services. 2) 'Dahej' is a huge problem that society is presently dealing with and the ad is portraying that such an attitude towards 'dahej' is actually acceptable. The ad did not call for rebuking the person for making such statements but instead went the other way by saying "Get used to such statements". The ad works even without the ill-timed joke on women driving and the 'dahej' comment, so there is no reason for making such regressive statements, which show women in poor light.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainants. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC heard the radio spot. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that – The voiceover in the Ad, “dahej mein layi hogi”, and the phrase “what luck”, by implication, encourages dowry and is in violation of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Radio spot was in breach of the law and contravened Chapter III.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The Ad describing that “a woman drives a different car everyday”, was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: AIM Study Center
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Job Guarantee or else money back”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Claim is false and not true.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Job Guarantee or else money back”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: CL Educate Limited
PRODUCT: CAT Coaching

COMPLAINT:

“5911 IIM Calls by 973 CL students from Delhi/NCR in CAT 2014”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

There is no evidence for the claim Career Launcher makes and that claim may be misleading. They have not mentioned a) Is this a final admission call or just interview call from IIMs? b) There is no third party validation source mentioned about these results. It's only mentioned as audited results.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “5911 IIM Calls by 973 CL students from Delhi/NCR in CAT 2014”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. 100 % Government Job provided if they do courses from Shri maharana paratap ITI 2. Number of jobs in govt. sector 15000 and private sector 5,00,000.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

They provide a telephone number 9111999629 as a student’s help line numbers, from this number they misleading students that it is a news not an advertisement. The advertisement of ‘Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI’ shows “that peoples who are not doing courses from Shri Maharana Pratap ITI of fire and safety, their future is in danger or other institutes are doing fraud with them. No University or Institutes are granted to run fire and safety courses. They not follow rules and regulation set by dget in which they have to mention private ITI example like "shri maharana pratap Private ITI" but they shows and appear just like they are government body and advertisement is sting news of newspaper.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “100% Government Job provided if they do courses from Shri maharana paratap ITI”, “Number of jobs in govt. sector 15000 and private sector 5,00,000”, were not substantiated. Also, the advertisement is designed to look like an editorial matter, which is misleading. 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 Ltd
PRODUCT: Kesh King Ayurvedic Hair Oi

COMPLAINT:

In the newspaper advertisement repeatedly published in leading Bengali newspaper and other places. It is shown that Juhi Chawla has achieved more than metre long hair by using this. In actual, the film actress, Juhi Chawla does not have more than shoulder length hair. The picture and the advertisement published is fake as Juhi Chawla has not achieved long hair by using this. Juhi Chawla and the company should be penalized with immediate stoppage of this ad.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC noted that in the TVC and the print Ad, Juhi Chawla has not stated that the length of her hair has been achieved with the usage of the product. The visuals shown in the print Ad and in the TVC of “Juhi Chawla with long hair” were considered to be generic and not in contravention of the ASCI code. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Odisha Television Ltd
PRODUCT: Tarang

COMPLAINT:

1. Tarang moves ahead of all programmes that getting telecast in any TV channel in Orissa. 2. Tag line Yours No-1 choice above the logo.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

1-TARANG violate BARC guideline that defined as The period of comparison must cover at least four consecutive weeks of data and has given comparison data of only one week (week 30-2015). 2-There is no source against the claim Yours No-1 choice 3-The claim says that Tarang moves ahead of all programmes that getting telecast in any TV channel in Orissa but there is a comparison between only Tarang and Sarthak. The advertisement is confusing and completely misleading. The advertiser is with a clear ill intension to categorically de-sale the competitor channel with wrongful presentation of data.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded – Ad shows comparison data of only one week and not over a statistically meaningful period viz. . four consecutive weeks of data. This confers an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. Claim, “Yours No-1 choice”, does not have a disclaimer qualifying the source and date of research for the claim. Claim, “Tarang moves ahead of all programmes that getting telecast in any TV channel in Orissa”, was not substantiated with comparative data of other competitor channels in the same category. Also, the claim is misleading as the Ad shows comparison only between Tarang and Sarthak. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and IV.1(b) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bookmyoffer.com
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

An advertisement displayed on the site bookmyoffer.com about the sale of the certain products under the name combo offer which include a sandisk ultramicro sdhc ush-1 16 gb memory card, Samsung data cable and sony earphone just rupees 199-pack of 3. As a customer I ordered the same from the site, I received the products on my address and pay Rs. 300 to the courier person. When I opened the packet, the story is completely different. They put local and cheap products instead of which has been described.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim/combo offer of “a sandisk ultramicro sdhc ush-1 16 gb memory card, Samsung data cable and sony earphone for just Rs.199 All 3 (pck)”, is false and misleading. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Kerala Fashion Jewellery
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

Advertisement has Two parts- a teaser followed by a complete one that explains the teaser. It’s in both visual and print media. The teaser has an actor saying "having daughters at marriageable age is tension for parents" followed by an explanation that "No! It’s not the daughters who are tension but only finding jewellery of daughter's choice and @lowest rate for their marriage is tension". This advertisement seeks to strike a fear in parents in having girl baby much against Govt' s policy of encouraging parents to have female child. It propagates views that "Girl child is tension" which might encourage female infanticide. The explanatory part is even worse as it supports dowry as an inescapable element of marriage. Why parents have to worry about gold jewellery as part of marriage of their girl? In short the advertisement is archaic in idea, obnoxious in messaging and unacceptable in execution against all norms of advertising. 1. An indecent Gender biased depiction. 2. Violating human and social values. 3. The way they visualize the women as a tension it embraces my thoughts. If they thought all daughters are tension why not all sons. Don’t show the gender equality in the family. No one wants or like tension, if you consider all women’s are tension, no one like female child. 4. Specifies that the girls of marriageable age as "Tension" which is demeaning. 5. It is also propagating the idea that gold is a pre-requisite for a girl's marriage. 6. It glorifies the concept of giving loads of Gold during the marriage which is a form of hidden dowry 7. We feel this ad instigates the social evil of dowry system in an indirect way. 8. The advertisement is totally derogatory for a girl child. 9. When the society is already looking at girls as a burden which reflects in foeticide and infanticide, this advt. reinforces the regressive values. 10. This is against the govt's policy of encouraging birthing of girl babies. This advt. creates fear in the minds of parents who are in the stage of getting their girls married.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC, print Ad, Website Ad, Hoarding, and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the celebrity (Prakash Raj) in the Ad, saying that “having daughters of marriageable age is tension for parents”, derides gender and is derogatory for a girl child. The TVC, print Ad, Website Ad, Hoarding contravened Chapter III.1(b) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Sarthak Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Sarthak TV

COMPLAINT:

The ad by Sarthak tries to divert the attention of viewers from the unique success of Tarang and in the process they have made clear defamatory statements like Digahara (directionless), Bhramatmaka (misleading), Hasyaspada (Funny) against Tarang (all these words are highlighted in attached ad). It is quite intentional and unethical on the part of Sarthak to publicly blame Tarang through a leading odia newspaper. This is to inform you that we are the premier Odia entertainment channel in the state of Odisha, continuously working hard to improve our content delivery for the best satisfaction of our loyal viewers. We have also unsubscribed TAM for last few months. We have now subscribed BARC for rating and research purpose. Under the BARC data for week 30 two of our serial were at top (1 & 2) among all programs telecast by all odia channels for that particular week. The same was stated in the advertisement dated 11th Aug 2015 with due disclosure of the source. For such wrongful and unethical act of Sarthak we request you to take strong action against them under the applicable provisions.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Digahara (directionless), Bhramatmaka (misleading), Hasyaspada (Funny)”, were not substantiated. Also, the advertisement is derogatory to competitor channel. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and IV.1(e) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Honda Cars India Ltd
PRODUCT: Honda Amaze

COMPLAINT:

Boasting Diwali is earlier this time, and in the end kids are making rounds to the car WITH BURNING CRACKERS THIS IS DANGEROUS A SERIOUS THREAT FOR KIDS' SAFETY, especially kids do copy acts shown on TV. Copying this act may lead to serious fire disaster, remove that part!

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the TVC and did not find the visual showing “children with sparklers in their hands and moving around the car objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel broadband Services

COMPLAINT:

Airtel advertised in both print and internet media that they are passing on surprise for all its existing broadband customers. The surprise constituted extra data or better download speed for the customers. I am an active customer of Airtel broadband since July10th. When I saw this ad, I was curious to see what my surprise was. I got a message on their website saying account not found. I tried reaching customer service and I got a response saying I don't qualify for the surprise. I contacted airtel on twitter. I was contacted by an airtel executive. She stated that the surprise is only for customers who are active as of June 30th 2015. The promotion website mentions nothing about this condition. Why fool customers with misleading communication? Can't we enforce transparent communication? Why is Airtel shying away from posting disclaimer/T&C on its website?

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded the claim, “We at airtel are giving away exciting surprises to all our broadband users”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claim is tenable. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel 4G

COMPLAINT:

“4G Speeds 3G Prices” “Get the same data benefits as your 3G pack and enjoy superfast 4G speeds at No extra cost "FREE 4G UPGRADE"”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

From 18th Nov 2014 I have been using airtel dongle #8800692053 which is running on 3G network. Based on the Airtel advertisement on 1st August 2015 I have purchased 4G dongle and a 4G sim card. After complaining to Airtel support team that my 4G plan is still not activated there has been a long wait and no action I am struggling to get my plan activated as airtel has come back to me and said the same plan which you have with Rs. 1100 rental is now available on Rs1500. if you look into the Airtel advertisement they are claiming that there is same 4G plan available on no extra cost but in reality they have totally different story.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim offer of, “Get the same data benefits as your 3G pack and enjoy superfast 4G speeds at No extra cost "FREE 4G UPGRADE"”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying that the benefits offered under retail plans are not available to users under corporate plans. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
PRODUCT: Godrej No.1 Soap

COMPLAINT:

“India’s No. 1 Purest Soap” “Product is made with 3/4th Natural Extracts”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The claim that the Product is India’s No. 1 Purest Soap is unsubstantiated and misleading. To sustain such a claim, it would have to be demonstrated by the Advertiser that Godrej No. 1 is the purest soap in India, and therefore demonstrate how all other soaps in India are impure, or at least, the soaps with a larger market share have impurities. The claim is outright misleading and false, because purity is understood to be something free from adulteration or contamination. By virtue of that understanding, it would have to be shown that all soaps in India, which have a larger market share than the Product, is either adulterated or contaminated. It needs to be kept in mind that selling of an adulterated or contaminated soap would be in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and would be a punishable offence. Hence, to sustain this claim, it would have to be demonstrated by the Advertiser that all other soaps in the market are compromised on purity, or at least, the soaps with a larger market share than Godrej No. 1 have impurities, and therefore sold in violation of the law. Clearly, such a claim and support is completely false and untenable. It needs to be appreciated that the soaps being sold in the Indian market are all well reputed products, being sold for a long time, and have an associated goodwill and reputation. Further, there is no evidence to show that such soaps have been found to be adulterated or contaminated by any judicial authority. Therefore, the claim is outright untenable, and without any substantiation. The advertiser should be called upon to demonstrate how the other soaps in the market are “impure”, and thereby substantiate claim its claim of being the purest soap. It is also important to note that the Product is not the most selling soap in India, either by volume or by value. Hence, the basis of the claim cannot be either the Product’s sales or market share, and if the claim is made on that basis, it would be outright untrue. The claim the Product is made with 3/4th Natural Extracts needs to be substantiated. The TVC also contains the claim that the Product contains 3/4th or 75% natural extracts. The message being conveyed to the consumer is that the Product is 75% natural. The Advertiser should be called upon to substantiate the basis of making this claim, and demonstrate how 75% of its ingredients are natural extracts, making the product 75% natural. It ought to be noted that the Advertiser’s product is a cosmetic soap, which would meet the BI Standard for cosmetic toilet soap, which is composed of specified levels of TFM. Hence, by the standard being applied by the Advertiser, all soaps in India are Natural, or at least, 75% natural. The mischief in the claim becomes abundantly clear by this simple analogy, that every cosmetic toilet soap cannot be a natural product, uncles demonstrated to be so. It is also important to note that consumers associate certain benefits with natural products, and by associating natural with a product which does not have 75% natural ingredients, the gullible consumers are being blatantly misled about the Product and its benefits. The claim should be substantiated with respect to all variants of the Product being shown in the TVC It is submitted that the last frame of the TVC shows many variants of the Product. The claim of No. 1 Purest Soap is clearly displayed in the last frame. Hence, the claim should be substantiated, and demonstrated with respect to all variants of the Product. Advertiser should be called upon to demonstrate the basis of the claim.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s No. 1 Purest Soap”, was not substantiated with comparative data of "purity" of this product versus other products. Also, the claim, by implication, denigrated other soaps in the same brand category. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and IV.1(e) of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The claim “Product is made with 3/4th Natural Extracts”, was not considered to be false. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Sea Academy
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“100% Pass Guarantee Coaching”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “100% Pass Guarantee Coaching”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Lakshya Forum for Competitions Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Lakshya Institute

COMPLAINT:

Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) and Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) are from their coaching institutes.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

There is no credibility in advertisement from this coaching institute. They are taking fees running up to 2 lakhs (+1 and +2) and they cheat parents by making false claims about good rank holders being their students. They are claiming that these two students belong to their classroom programs. They are blatantly lying as it is not possible for them to have taken classroom coaching from these two simultaneously. Now that I was uploading photos of ads, I noticed another rank holder on the list (Yuvraj, AIIMS-2015 rank 11).

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. Advertiser provided the registration form of Mr. Yuvraj Chopra to prove that he was a student of Lakshya Institute. The CCC concluded that the Advertiser substantiated that Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) is from their institute with authentic evidence. The complaint is Not Upheld on Review.

 

COMPANY: Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Aakash Institute

COMPLAINT:

Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) are from their coaching institutes. There is no credibility in advertisement from this coaching institute. They are taking fees running up to 2 lakhs (+1 and +2) and they cheat parents by making false claims about good rank holders being their students. They are claiming that these two students belong to their classroom programs. They are blatantly lying as it is not possible for them to have taken classroom coaching from these two simultaneously. Now that I was uploading photos of ads, I noticed another rank holder on the list (Yuvraj, AIIMS-2015 rank 11).

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. As claims support data, the Advertiser provided testimonials of twins Sahil Bansal and Rahul Bansal. Advertiser did not provide details of their enrollment/registration forms, receipt of fees paid, etc, to prove that they were students of Aakash Institute. The CCC concluded that the advertiser claiming that Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) were from their coaching institutes was not substantiated with authentic evidence. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Priis Trading Company – Priis BSY Noni Black
PRODUCT: Hair Magic Fruit Shampoo

COMPLAINT:

1. Shows it is like hair shampoo which would blacken your hair in 5/10 minutes of use as shampoo. 2. It says that no harmful chemicals and extracted from natural way

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

It doesn’t say or warn about possible allergy born out of normal hair dyes. It misleads the customer to think it is a natural product and will have no energy, no chemical content. So it is felt that it against advertising standards to be followed.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser argues that the TVC has not been released by them; However, advertiser has not furnished any evidence of them having taken any action, based on the complaint, to stop the allegedly unauthorized TVC from being aired. The CCC concluded that the claims in the TVC, that BSY Noni Black Hair Magic “blackens hair within 10 minutes of use”, and “it is a natural dye”, were not substantiated and are misleading. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. Complaint regarding “the Ad does not warn about possible allergy” was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Limited
PRODUCT: Advanced Lifebuoy Soap

COMPLAINT:

The Ad Depicts a Qualified Doctor (May Be a Paediatrician) is Examining a Soap with a sthethoscope and informing the Kid That there is Nothing wrong with the Kid, But The problem is the soap, (after Examining with the Stethoscope). This Ad is completely misleading as 1) A qualified r is Shown Examining a soap. 2) How can a Dr Determine a Non life Item like soap with a Stehoscope? 3) Then the Ad Shows Lifebouy Soap which prevents those "10" Infections. 4) Which are those 10 Infections which Lifebouy soap Can prevent? Where Is the Proof and Data This Ad is completely misleading the Gullible Public By erroneously depicting a Dr Examining a Soap with a Stehoscope This is A false and misleading the public by depicting a dr who is seemingly Telling the Public to Use Lifebuoy which prevents those 10 Infections, which is preaching a Falsehood. Request ASCI to immediately Ban this Ad and HLL should give a public apology for using this Ad To promote It as an Anti INFECTION Soap, which is not Backed By Scientific Data and demeaning the Profession Of Doctors in this country.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

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 the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that – TVC claim that “Advanced Lifebuoy provides protection from germs causing 10 infections” (“Advanced Lifebuoy de dus infectionwale taakatwar kitanuo se suraksha”, was substantiated by giving in vitro efficacy results against infections causing germs (Stomach infections, Pneumonia, Ear infection, Eye infections, Acute respiratory infections, Enteric fever, Typhoid, Dysentery, Boils, Furuncles, Impetigo, Acne). The depiction of “a Doctor examining a Soap with a sthethoscope” in the TVC was considered to be an obvious exaggeration intended to amuse or to catch the eye of the consumer which is not objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Institute of Advance Network Technology
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

1. The only institute in India which offers to students 5 international, 9 participation and 1 IANT totalling 15 certificates. It is not clear whether these are offered to every student or these are offered by the company in total. A student may get only 1 IANT Certificate or depending on the courses he chooses, participating companies be offering their certificates. This needs clarification. The student may be tempted by the number of certificates the company offers to successful candidates. 2. The company gives 100% job guarantee in writing. It also declares its IT Job Portal as the only one available in India. This needs official clarification from the Govt Body. 3. The company lures the student by telling that once they complete the course, they can earn annually from Rs.78000/- to Rs. 4, 60,000/- as salary and offers 100% job guarantee let company show the proofs. 4. The IANT Certificate is considered valid or acceptable (for jobs) in India as well as abroad in other countries. This seems to be overemphasis, because we see ADS of many other institutes offering similar courses and offering certificates on passing. 5. The company boasts as No1 hardware, Networking and Software training institute, No1 Infrastructure, No. 1 Quality Education. These needs credentials for substantiation from evaluating agencies or bodies. 6. The courses offered by the company have minimum educational standard as std.10-12 pass or fail who has no knowledge of computer and will be handling the computer for the first time. The job guarantee and salary they can earn once they pass the course, seem too much tempting and one has to approach the company for admission with 3 passport size photos, latest mark sheet and Rs.2000/- in pocket to make admission process simple. This is the way company would make money, the student may complete the course or leave half-way, only student is the loser, the company is always earning. In the uncertain market of jobs even for the true qualified students, such tall claims make a tempting impression on the minds of students who then become scapegoats. In almost every city I think there has to be some way to check the tall claims.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

In view of the Advertiser’s request for an extension of time, the Advertiser was granted an extension till 3rd September 2015. But no specific comments against the claims made were received from the Advertiser. ASCI is required to deliberate on the complaints in a time bound manner and hence no further extension can be granted. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and concluded that the claims mentioned in the advertisement and cited in the complaint, “only institute in India which offers to students 5 international, 9 participation and 1 IANT totalling 15 certificates”, “A student may get only 1 IANT Certificate or depending on the courses he chooses, participating companies be offering their certificates”, “100% job guarantee”, “its IT Job Portal is the only one available in India”, “Once they complete the course, they can earn annually from Rs.78000/- to Rs. 4,60,000/- as salary”, “No.1 hardware Networking and Software training institute”, “No.1 Infrastructure”, “No.1 Quality Education”, were not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Shree Sant Kripa Appliances Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: Syska Gadget Secure

COMPLAINT:

In another version of the same product, Irfan Khan says Syska LED- if broken, free replacement, if stolen, free replacement, if found defective, free replacement. All these promises need proof and 'free' should be proved or substantiated.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim offer in the TVC, “Syska LED- if broken free replacement, if stolen free replacement, if found defective free replacement”, was not substantiated with evidence whether any customers have availed this offer. The CCC opined that the generic disclaimer “Conditions apply” would be acceptable for the claim if there was data to prove that customers are indeed able to avail the offer and there are no criteria that would make this offer improbable. The TVC contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. Also, the Supers in the TVC were not legible and were not in the same language as the voiceover of the TVC. The TVC contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Quicko Infosoft Pvt Ltd-
PRODUCT: Quicko.com

COMPLAINT:

I saw this ad on ABP Mazha Live - Website (http://abpmajha.abplive.in/livetv) and also on Quicko.com. The Ad begins with small kid sitting in garden and saying with contempt and sense of arrogance- ''Yeh Garden Mere Baap ka hai, Because my dad pays tax" followed by a voice over - ''Be a proud Indian, pay tax online.... etc. There are similar ads with ''Yeh Hospital Mere Baap ka hai, Yeh Road mere baap ka hai, Yeh Electricity mere baap ki hai, Yeh Playground Mere baap ka Hai, Yeh Footpath mere baap ka hai. Dishonest Representation - The ads represents and gives an impression especially in the minds of kids and claims that because a person pays tax, that person owns the Public Park, Public hospital, electricity or the Public footpath as the case may be. It misrepresents that the public places can be owned by private individuals to the exclusion of other. The use of mere baap ki hai connotes such impression based on the common usage. Moreover it is a fact which states that the public places can be used by all without any caste, creed, religion or economic bias. It is offensive to general public, it shows Kids talking about sense of ownership of public properties with contempt and arrogance and use of words like 'Baap' in a manner which does not bring out best moral values and it encourages the young kids to stamp their authority on public places without their having actual right on it. It goes against basic moral values. The Advertisement is potentially harmful to the minors especially and the society in general as the conduct which is promoted in the advertisement will result in wrong and incorrect conclusion in the minds that one owns public places and hence it can be concluded by them that such ownership brings other rights associated with ownership. This will have an impact on the minds of the minors that it is alright to stamp your authority on public places because your father pays tax and use it, abuse it in any manner which one wants or deprive another person who may not be paying taxes. The impression after seeing the ads by the kids and others would be that a person who pays tax has more right than others which is not the case. Paying tax is national obligation and the awareness should be there among the youngster as to what benefits it bring and not to encourage private ownership of public spaces.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the phrase ''Yeh Garden Mere Baap ka hai, Because my dad pays tax", in the context of the advertisement is portraying pride and a sense of ownership towards public property and was not offensive. It was an obvious exaggeration to catch the eye of the consumers. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Jaguar Group
PRODUCT: Jaguar bathroom fittings

COMPLAINT:

"India's most trusted bath fitting brand"

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

What is the basis for making such a claim? .No disclaimers to indicate the source of this data.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. As claim support data, the Advertiser provided results of a bath fitting industry brand perception survey conducted by Nielsen in November 2013. The CCC concluded that the claim, "India's most trusted bath fitting brand", is not substantiated for the brand based on the latest market scenario and is misleading by omission of a qualifier that the claim is based on 2013 data. Also, the source and date of research for the claim is not mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: H T Media Ltd
PRODUCT: Shine.com

COMPLAINT:

Ad comparing unique visitors on Shine.com and MonsterIndia.com. The ad shows average monthly unique visitors on both job portals from Jan-June and goes on to state that they have a better candidate database. Unique visitors necessarily doesn't mean people have registered. The image shown is also denigrating the other site. They are making a claim of 'better candidate database'. However a candidate database is 'registered users'. More number of people visiting the site, doesn't mean they are registered users with Shine. They are implying something which is not necessarily true. 'Better' also needs qualification. In the way they stated it, better means more than 'quantity of registered users'. One can argue a 'better' candidate database is dependent on the 'quality' of registered users which can be education or work experience etc. The disclaimer is acceptable for user visits and not 'better candidate database'. I don't have any evidence other than what is quoted on the ad. They are also showing the 'monster' mascot or rather something that looks like it in a bad light. Direct comparisons are absolutely fine but using it to imply something else is not.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

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. Advertisement implies that the traffic to the site is greater and the advertiser should have restricted his comments to that, without use of the word 'database'. The advertiser is equating unique users to a database of registered users. The users are not kept on a searchable database. By having more users you are not able to get rid of a limited database, neither is there an implication that the database is in some way better. The CCC concluded that the claims, “Shine.com has max more traffic than Monsterindia.com. That means a better candidate database”, are misleading by implication and omission. Also, the image of a monster mascot shown when read in conjunction with the Ad – headline, “Say Bye to the monster of limited database”, is unfairly denigrating the competitor site. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.4 and IV.1 (e) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Pisces eServices Pvt Ltd
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

An announcement from the online aggregator" Food Panda" say that you will get Flat 50% off in case you order food using their platform. As a consumer when I planned and was ordering I came across that maximum discount is only INR 200 and not 50% of the order value.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC heard the radio spot and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim offer of “Flat 50% off on every meal”, in the Ad is misleading by ambiguity and omission that the claim is valid under certain conditions. The radio spot contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Indus League Clothing Ltd
PRODUCT: Indigo Nation

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement of INDIGO NATION apparel begins with visuals of a couple dating in a bar seated opposite, holding each other’s’ hands, flirting and smiling coyly at each other. They are on the verge of kissing but the scene gets paused and a caption appears “There’s a reason why it’s called a date”. The man moves forward to kiss his date (her eyes closed) but his attention seems to be somewhere else in the bar. The scene pauses and caption flashes “One follows another”. It turns out that he has noticed another woman walking away from the bar and passing by his table. While still on a date, he manages to flirt with the other woman by making eye contact and flashing a smile at her. This is followed by the tagline of the brand INDIGO NATION – subject to Change’’ appearing on the screen with their Logo signified by chameleon lizard.In the next scene, a bra, panty, dress and a pair of stilettos can be seen strewn around in a room leading up to a bed wherein a woman is lying down and the man is waking up shirtless. He then wears his denim shirt, looking sideways and the scene pauses with the caption “Wake up in the morning”. The woman in bed wrapped in white sheet wakes up and is revealed as the second woman in the bar followed by another caption “Get her name right” – suggesting he had done this many times. The advertisement ends with the man admiring himself, seemingly his machismo and accomplishment, in the mirror. The advertisement contains suggestive visuals, catchphrases and glorifies promiscuity. Indigo Nation also misinterprets and relates itself to casual encounters or one night stands with its meandering tagline ‘Subject to change’. Instead of relying on or promoting a great dynamic variety of apparels, it tries to launch the brand as the choice of the careless and the happening. It sure leaves an impact and projects promiscuity as desirable and cool. The advertisement violates Advertisement Code – 7[8] prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. According to Advertising Code - 7 [8], indecent, vulgar, suggestive repulsive or offensive themes or treatment shall be avoided in all advertisements.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVCs and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the scenes (couple in the bedroom and couple dating in the bar) as shown in the TVCs is not so vulgar or objectionable as to cause grave or widespread offence. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: NRD Enterprises
PRODUCT: No Fat Capsules

COMPLAINT:

1. No Negative Side Effects 2. 100% Safe & Herbal Ingredients

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertisement claims to reduce weight and burn fat in just in just 30 days...it claims to be 100% safe and herbal , with 0 side effects and says that results may vary person to person. Ban such advertisements as these can really cause bad effects on human health...these pop up while surfing net and really mislead people.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The Advertiser requested for an extension of time till 20th September 2015 to respond to the complaint. The Advertiser was advised to respond by the due date of 3rd September 2015 so that the complaint can be processed in a time bound manner. The advertiser representatives were also given personal hearing by ASCI on 7th September 2015. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. As claim support data, the Advertiser provided customer testimonials and list of product ingredients. The CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “No Negative Side Effects”, and “100% Safe & Herbal Ingredients”, were not substantiated with authentic clinical evidence. Also, the visuals in the advertisement were misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Flipkart Internet Private Limited
PRODUCT: Tek-Tron Velroc Safety Outdoor Shoes

COMPLAINT:

I am writing to bring to your notice and kind attention that, during browsing for online products at Online products at Flipkart Shopping website. I found selling of product above MRP, which I think is illegal & offence. I would request you to take further serious action on the same. Attaching the Images as on today 21 Aug 2015 from website for your kind reference.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached Flipkart Internet Private Limited for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the Website advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the website communication claiming the MRP of the product as Rs.599, when actually printed MRP on product is same as being offered as the discounted price of Rs.499, distorts facts and is therefore misleading the consumers as to actual discount being offered. The Website communication contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd
PRODUCT: HDFC Life Cancer Care

COMPLAINT:

Lisa Ray, the cancer survivor make a pitch for saving for a disease like cancer. The advertisement is being shown with a frenetic frequency cutting the key crux statement about the "Advancements of Medical Sciences". It would have been shown almost in every advt break during the screening of the movie The Bucket List. This gets terrifying and too goading on the part of viewers. A sensible message takes an obnoxious threatening turn giving an impression as if everyone is going to get plagued by the dreaded disease. The emotional exploitation of a cancer patient need to be done with due restraint and responsibility. An emotional entrapment is being created deliberately for commercial gains.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the communication does not attempt to scare the viewers, but creates awareness of how financial planning can help to deal with medical conditions such as cancer. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Philips Electronics India Ltd.
PRODUCT: Philips modular switches

COMPLAINT:

Advertisement for Philips modular switches depicting children throwing liquids and other items at switch boards I recently saw this advertisement and was appalled by how they depicted children throwing liquids and other items at switchboards as other children can easily imitate this, putting their lives into danger. The product is wonderful but the advertisement is giving the wrong message to little children.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by the ASCI. 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 the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The Advertiser submitted test reports and a certificate as proof that the switches are water and spill proof. The advertiser claiming their switches to be water resistant was substantiated. However, the CCC concluded that the scene in the TVC showing “spraying of liquid on the switches”, shows a dangerous practice which is likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could cause harm or injury. This part of the TVC contravened Chapters III.2 (b) and III.3 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Goyal Group of Companies
PRODUCT: Housing project

COMPLAINT:

Housing project termed as "bharatiya jan ghar yojana" coming up around pune with different offerings. The term "bharatiya jan ghar yojana" itself is misleading and having similarity with "pradhanmantri jan dhan yojana". Common man will take it as some housing project promoted by government.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the TVC. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the Housing project termed as "bharatiya jan ghar yojana", is misleading by implication that it is backed and supported by Government. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Ayurwin Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: Nutrislim

COMPLAINT:

It is about the husband refusing to take along his wife to a party because she is fat and the mother-in-law giving her Nutrislim to reduce weight and then the happy husband saying- I am never bored in your company (sick). This ad objectifies women to serve the interests of men. The wife and the mother-in-law together try to fit into the male demands of objectification. It also depicts women like people with no self -respect and substance. It reminded me of the mothers-in-laws who victimise daughters-in-law in the name of dowry. This is no less than the dowry demanding mother-in-law.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and concluded that “husband refusing to take his wife to party because she is fat”, is derogatory to women, more particularly to those with weight issues as it results in social conditioning of opinion against them. The advertisement contravened Chapter III.1(b) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: M/S. S. A. Safiullah & Co
PRODUCT: Nizam Pakku

COMPLAINT:

NIZAM PAKKU advertiser (PAKKU IN TAMIL means ARECA-NUT) in the Ad song encourages Children to take the "areca nuts” saying everyone from children to Grownups can take PAKKU. Please discourage the advertiser from advertising for CHILDREN to take PAKKU in the ad song

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the visuals of children/young teenagers eating pakku (areca nuts) shows an unsafe practice, which is likely to encourage minors to emulate such act which could cause harm to them. Also, the TVC is misleading by omission of a cautionary message/warning. The TVC contravened Chapters I.4, III.2 (b) and III.3 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd
PRODUCT: Dove Elixir

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement as published in above media/online platforms makes false and misleading claim, visualization and comparison. The advertisement also denigrate entire coconut hair oil category, content for comparison are chosen to derive artificial advantage. Claim: - Coconut oil penetrates only through 1 layer in 30 minutes. Challenge: - Coconut oil is a physiological lipid with structure similar to hair lipids. The penetration of coconut oil into hair has been studied using several techniques like TOF-SIMS, radiolabelling and confocal microscopy. These studies have been done by prestigious institutes like TRI (USA) and BARC and have been published in international journals. These studies unambiguously prove that coconut oil penetrates through all the layers of hair, right upto the medulla within 30 minutes. All these studies conclude the following: Coconut oil penetrates all three layers of hair within 30 minutes. Coconut oil penetration into hair is superior to penetration of other vegetable oils. Mineral oil does not penetrate the hair. Dove Elixir is a type 3 hair oil containing 79% Mineral oil. Besides this, the product contains low levels of vegetable oils and silicones. It is also established in literature that silicone oils do not penetrate the hair. Given this information, it is technically not possible that Dove Elixir can penetrate the hair better than coconut oil can in 30 mins. Claim:- Creative visualization of penetration of Oil into Hair Challenge: - Hair has a complex structure consisting of 3 layers- cuticle, cortex and medulla. Each layer has several sub-layers and distinct composition. Penetration of molecules into this complex structure happens primarily by molecular diffusion and is governed by the polarity of the material, its molecular weight and its affinity to keratin. The said advertisement tries to depict diffusion of oil into hair and correlate it to technical measure of “filtration”; which is technically incorrect. A filter paper has pores of uniform dimension and filtration of a liquid through a filter paper depends on its bulk diffusion. This is a completely different phenomenon than the molecular diffusion of a liquid through a complex 3D structure like hair. The ad tries to correlate each filter paper as one layer of hair and shows that coconut oil does not pass through the first layer within 30 minutes. The filtration of oil through the filter paper is completely unrelated to its diffusion through the hair, thus the visualization is misleading. Claim: - Dove Elixir is better than ordinary hair oils^. (Disclaimer ^coconut hair oil). While doing penetration comparison on filter paper, blue bottle is placed next to words “ordinary hair oil”. Challenge:- The advertisement seeks to give an impression that Coconut Oil is ordinary hair oil. This is clearly designed to give an incorrect impression to the viewer that coconut hair oil is sub standard, and the use of the word ordinary is clearly in a derogratory and denigrating manner. The advertisement attempt to mislead the consumers into believing that it has better efficacy than Coconut hair oil. The visuals of the advertisement as shown are clearly aimed at denigrating the Complainant’s product. The Complainant’s coconut hair oil is also sold in a blue bottle and has significant market share for coconut hair oil. This is deliberate anti competitive action taken by the Advertisers only to increase its market share/enter the hair oil category by misleading the consumers. All statements/claims/visual presentation are intended to mislead the consumer for commercial gain. They are not based on any adequate scientific study and in gross violation of the ASCI Code.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser has provided more detail in the data submitted (Annexures F1 and F2) Advertiser has argued that their findings are public and have been peer reviewed. They have published a poster in the 8th World Hair Congress (Annexure C) and have also submitted a paper to the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Annexure E makes a reference to this and also to the 7th World Congress for Hair Research). However, it is not clear if the paper is accepted or not. Then they also say that "their" mineral oil penetrates into hair because of its low molecular weight. Advertiser has not provided names of the oils in question and no comparison with "traditional" mineral oil (the ones referred to in the literature) is given. The visual representation in the advertisement remains incorrect. The creative visuals showing penetration of Dove Elixir through 3 layers while coconut oil penetrating through 1 layer in 30 minutes is not scientifically accurate. Advertiser is trying to use the 3:1 uptake rate ratio through this visualization. However, the advertisement ends up implying that while Dove Elixir will reach its destination (into hair cortex) coconut oil will get stuck after the first layer. As per their own data, some coconut oil will reach the hair cortex but Dove Elixir reaching the same spot will be 3 times that amount. Based on the above opinion, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Coconut oil penetrates only through 1 layer in 30 minutes via visual representation” was false and misleading. This contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The depiction of movement of Dove oil through filter paper cited in the advertisement as “Creative visualization” was considered to be misleading and misrepresentative of the actual process of diffusion by which oil penetrates hair. This contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. Claim: - Dove Elixir is better than ordinary hair oils^. (Disclaimer ^coconut hair oil) unfairly denigrated the category of “coconut oil” and is likely to mislead consumers. This contravened Chapters IV.1(d), (e) of the ASCI Code. The decision of the complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

COMPANY: CouponsCenter
PRODUCT: Makemytrip trippy Tuesdays Offer

COMPLAINT:

I have lost Rs.1200 by relying on this misleading advertisement and used coupon code FLYNOW mentioned here to get cashback of Rs.1200 from Makemytrip.com but Makemytrip.com has refused to give me cashback. They are saying (makemytrip.com) that they don't have tie up with ICICI bank for this offer through which I have paid to them. This is a misleading advt. I request you to take necessary actions against "http://couponscenter.in/". In addition to this I tried to contact "http://couponscenter.in/" but 'Page Not Found' error is displayed on the same website. http://couponscenter.in/coupon/makemytrip-trippytuesdays-flat-rs-1200-off-on-domestic-flightsselect- banks-mobile-app/

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the advertised claim offer of “Flat Rs.1200 off on Domestic Flights” was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd
PRODUCT: HDFC Life Insurance

COMPLAINT:

I wish to register a complaint against an advertisement email sent by HDFC life insurance with the subject line as "Be prepared to face cancer @ Rs5/day". I have the content email as below which I received today. I personally feel that the contents of subject line will create a kind of fear among the readers unnecessarily that too by sending email to my personal inbox. How come they can urge all the masses in general to be prepared to face cancer? This email has spoiled my peace and already I am in fear and confusion.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the promotional email sent to the complainant, and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the communication does not attempt to scare the viewers, but creates awareness of how financial planning can help to deal with medical conditions such as cancer. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel-4G – My Plan Infinity

COMPLAINT:

“Unlimited Calls, Unlimited Movies, Unlimited Music and Loads of data” Complaint 1-The ad shows a group of girls sitting in a restaurant/coffee shop and talking about Airtel's new plan - the 4G infinity plan. Towards the end of the ad we see the claims - 'unlimited calls', unlimited movies, 'unlimited music' and 'loads of data A quick look on google.com regarding 'complaints on misleading ads' led me to your website. I recently watched an ad by India's no.1 telecom service provider, Airtel, which I personally found to be very misleading for many reasons. The ad in concern is Airtel's recently launched TV ad for their 'Infinity plan'. This ad talks about 'unlimited calls', 'unlimited movies', 'unlimited music' and 'loads of data'. Being a college student living in a hostel anything and everything unlimited or free excites me and that's why I was intrigued to check out this plan. When I did check the plan details on their website it left me very disappointed. Their T&C states that the 'unlimited calls' are capped at 5000 minutes for 'non-retail' users and one of their definitions for the same is 'Calls to more than 300 unique numbers (mobile and/or landline and STD and/or ISD calls) in a week'. This completely goes against their claim of 'unlimited calls'. Staying away from home in a hostel means I end up making a lot of STD calls in addition to multiple local calls in my friend's circle which at times easily go beyond 300 minutes, especially during college events or seminars, that doesn't mean I am using it for commercial reasons. Additionally, 'unlimited calls' also made me believe 'ISD' calls will be free bit this isn't the case in any of the four 'infinity plans'. While I was cautious enough to read the fine print, many people usually don't take the effort and finally end up paying huge bills. I hope my complaint reaches the right person and action will be taken against Airtel. Complaint 2-Airtel 4G - myPLAN INFINITY. The main girl approaches 4 girls in a cafe asking them what they use their mobile phones the most for. The girls answer for talking, music, movies, downloads/internet (data). For all that the main girl says 'unlimited' and claims that all that can happen because it is 4G. I am writing this letter to you to bring to your notice a fraudulent claim that is being made by one of India's leading telecom company, Airtel. Airtel has done a great job by being one of the first ones in the country to launch 4G services but at the same time I don't understand why such a big company tries to fool us consumers. I recently saw an Airtel 4G ad on TV about talking about their myPlan INFINITY. This ad made a claim about 'unlimited calls', 'unlimited movies', 'unlimited movies' and 'loads of data'. Since it showed 'unlimited calls' I found this ad to be very interesting and that is why I immediately looked up details of the plan on their website but to my disappointment their 'unlimited calls' are not really 'unlimited'. First of all, on their website they have mentioned that their 'unlimited calls' are capped at 5000 a month. Secondly, this ad made me believe they will have 'unlimited ISD calls' as well, which is something that is of much use to me, but again, this is not included in the plan. Complaint 3- There is an advertisement where bunch of friends discuss about what they use cellular service for and the initiator states she will give "unlimited services" for talk time, internet data, movies, downloads, etc. This ad is very misleading and ambiguous in what the company means by "unlimited." The way I understand is that the services, as described, are anyways unlimited in all networks but the charges vary and there are slots given for charges. There is nothing really new or unique in what they claim. Also, the ad tends to make the viewers believe that several of these will be free of charge or an initial charge for unlimited data, which is not the case.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim of “unlimited” is misleading, as this Airtel-4G – My Plan Infinity is not truly unlimited. The advertiser’s website mentions that this plan has many terms and conditions and the calls are capped at 5000 minutes per month. Therefore the choice of the term “unlimited” is incorrect. The claim, “Unlimited Calls, Unlimited Movies, Unlimited Music and Loads of data”, is false and misleading. Also, the disclaimer in the TVC is not clearly legible. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code and the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Khosla Electronics
PRODUCT: Special offer for Nikon Dual Kit camera

COMPLAINT:

The advertisement published by Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is totally misleading that the Camera of Nikon will be sold at Rs. 27990. The product was available at the counter but it was not available for Rs. 27990. They asked for Rs. 38500 which was higher than the price mentioned in the advertisement. But the prices of all the products in the advertisement remained the same except that of Nikon. Also when I insist on the advertisement they told me to choose another product, even

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim of the “offer price of Rs.27990/- of Nikon Dual Kit camera” in the Ad is false and misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: Airtel-4G

COMPLAINT:

A girl talking to her group of friends and asking what they use their phone for and how all of that is available unlimited. There is some writing on the lower right corner which is illegible.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The advertiser argues that the super in the TVC is 12 pixel; however, this is the “minimum” size limit as per ASCI guidelines. No agency certification has been provided to confirm the pixel size. The CCC, themselves viewed the TVC and concluded that the disclaimer in the TVC is not clearly legible. The TVC contravened the ASCI Guidelines on Supers. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Sandesh Limited
PRODUCT: Sandesh News

COMPLAINT:

Sandesh news channel – No.1 news channel in Gujarat state

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

It claims to be the number one news channel in Gujarat state without any substantials.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the Ad - Hoarding. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad - hoarding, “Sandesh News is No.1 Gujarathi news channel”, was not substantiated. Also, the source and date of research for the claim is not mentioned in the Ad. The Ad – Hoarding contravened Chapters I.1 and I.2 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Amrita Homeopathy
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Experience rapid, complete and permanent cure with Advanced Classical Homeopathy for Asthma”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The ad is claiming to cure asthma completely and permanently.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser has provided testimonials of few patients in support of their claims. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Experience rapid, complete and permanent cure with Advanced Classical Homeopathy for Asthma”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Airtel Ltd
PRODUCT: MyPlan infinity with Airtel-4G

COMPLAINT:

Complaint 1- The ad is about Airtel's recently launched unlimited calling plan. The picture shows a girl holding a phone with '4G' written on it and the headline in the box above her reads UNLIMITED CALLING, ONLY WITH AIRTEL 4G...for the first time ever, enjoy local and STD calls. That’s right, no limits at all. Only with myPlan Infinity on Airtel 4G. airtel.in/4G. The ad in question over here by Airtel attracts the reader with the headline UNLIMITED CALLING, ONLY WITH AIRTEL 4G and goes on to mention for the first time ever, enjoy local and STD calls. That’s right, no limits at all. Only with myPlan Infinity on Airtel 4G. airtel.in/4G. Given the high bills that I pay for my phone I was but naturally attracted to this plan and went to check it out in an Airtel store. But to my displeasure I found out that this plan is not truly unlimited as they claim. The executive at the store mentioned many T&C which are attached to this plan and the calls are capped at 5000 minutes per month. Given a 12 to 16 hour work schedule, visiting the store was a true waste of my time. Complaint 2- It is the first time ever that a mobile service provider is offering unlimited calling on Local and STD calls throughout the country. It seems that the consumer is being made a fool with the advertisement. The communication is misleading for a customer.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim of “unlimited” is misleading, as this Airtel-4G – My Plan Infinity is not truly unlimited. The advertiser’s website mentions that this plan has many terms and conditions and the calls are capped at 5000 minutes per month. Therefore the choice of the term “unlimited” is incorrect. The claim, “Unlimited Calling, only with Airtel 4G”, is false and misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The second complaint regarding the claim being misleading by implying the calling facility being available across the country was NOT UPHELD. The advertisement is qualified by a disclaimer which indicates that for the list of cities where 4G is available, one has to visit the advertiser’s Website. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Marico Limited
PRODUCT: Saffola Total

COMPLAINT:

Claims Objected to: 1. Saffola Total has 2X anti-oxidant power than olive oil. 2. Saffola Total is better than olive oil. Complaint 1: “It emphasis on the betterment of Saffola total then olive oil and it says 2X better oxidant then olive oil. Please give details if possible. Previously it is noted that Olive oil is better then any refined oil as it is a pure juice of a fruit. It is to understand deeply and proof that the product is better than olive oil or the advertisement is misleading.” Complaint 2 : “Saffola disparaging olive oil” “I represent the Indian olive association regarding the subject of this email. This is with reference to previous instances of Saffola disparaging olive oil and ASCI repeatedly asking them to withdraw their adverts. They have started advertising it again on TV and online and with increased reference to being better than olive oil for health.”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. 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 the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC concluded that – Claim 1: "Saffola Total has 2X anti-oxidant power than Olive oil" Advertiser has demonstrated antioxidant power of Saffola Total through two approaches: i) chemical methods like Totox value and DPPH scavenging activity ii) As part of the clinical study, the advertiser has measured inflammatory biomarkers such as SuperOxide Dismutate (SOD), oxidized LDL and Apolipoprotein B to study the benefits of Saffola Total versus olive oil variants. Saffola Total shows positive influence on inflammatory biomarkers indicating that it can contribute to protection of cells from oxidative damage. However, it cannot be considered as a “2X” physiological end benefit to consumer. Therefore the claim, “Saffola Total has 2X anti-oxidant power than olive oil”, was considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD. The data submitted by the advertiser with respect to the anti oxidant action in Saffola for protecting the oil against oxidation and /or enhancing shelf life of the product was not considered relevant in this complaint as it was dealt with in the previous complaint C.6182. Claim 2: "Saffola Total gives better protection than olive oil” (Olive oil se behtar hifajat) Advertiser has conducted human intervention study and demonstrated that Saffola Total has been found to have better efficacy in managing five lipid parameters and three inflammation biomarkers. However, a generalized claim of "Saffola Total providing better protection than Olive oil" is misleading by ambiguity. This is because Olive oil is also known to have health benefits due to presence of anti-oxidant (Vitamin E). The CCC also opined that to say that one oil is better than another based on one selected study would be technically incorrect as no single oil can be considered as the best. Each oil has its own profile of chemical constituents that may/may not have diverse health beneficial properties. Health experts also recommend that consumers should keep changing the oil used in their diet to avail of different health benefits each oil offers. Based on the above, the CCC concluded that in the context of the advertisement, the TVC by stating “Isiliye olive oil nahin” unfairly denigrates another product (olive oil). The TVC contravened Chapters I.4 and IV.1 (e) of the Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited
PRODUCT: Max Bupa Health Insurance

COMPLAINT:

“Cashless Approval in 30 minutes”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Policy No. 30137617201402 - I had informed over phone and through email on 28/10/2014 regarding hospitalization of my wife on 03/11/2014 and submitted the required documents through Apollo Hospital, Kolkata on 01/11/2014 through Fax and requested for cashless approval (Pre-auth request ID 59015). But Max Bupa intimated denial for cashless approval on 02/11/2014 after my enquiry with them. After discharge from hospital, I submitted the claim documents which was received by them on 11/11/2014. Claim reported date was 13/11/2014 and Claim No.108950. Max Bupa intimated regarding denial of claim on 20/12/2014 after my enquiry with them only. Their denial of my claim is not as per norms and on baseless grounds. There is irresponsible behaviour on their part since beginning in processing of my claim. They are not only supposed to take huge premiums by luring / influencing the public, but settle the genuine claim smoothly with positive attitude also

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. Advertiser’s review response states that during the three months (May to July 2015) approximately 93% of pre-authorisations requests have been processed within the period of 30 minutes. The fine print in the website Ad states “....Max Bupa processes pre-auth within 30 minutes for all active policies subject to receiving all documents and information(s) up to Max Bupa’s satisfaction…..” The keyword is “processes” and not “approval”. The advertisement does not specify about the documents needed from provider (hospital, nursing home) and that there is dependency on hospital/nursing home to act fast. Advertiser did not provide evidence that they have adhered to their timelines of “cashless approval within 30 minutes” with data of few of their customers. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Cashless approval in 30 minutes”, was not substantiated and was misleading by omission. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Ayusya Herbal Clinic
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“Over 3 Lac Satisfied Patients”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The 100 CC advertisement is of Ayusya Herbal Clinic printed in the bottom right hand side of the 1st page of Ei Samay 1/08/2015. The organisation claims to treat Piles, Fistula, Fissure. In the middle a red strip mentions "Pioneer Panchakarma Therapi in Eastern India, OVER 3 LACS SATISFIED PATIENT". I firmly believe that this organization which has started its Panchakarma therapy only about six or seven months ago cant logically treat 3 lacs patients, leave aside satisfied. However if they are indeed advertising this they should provide proper evidential backing to the people. Otherwise just writing a sentence without any basis or substance is equal to misleading the people at large. I comprehend people are being fooled and duped by such misleading advertisements and actions should be taken as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Over 3 Lac Satisfied Patients”, was not substantiated. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Ratna Siddha Hospital
PRODUCT: Treatment for Autism

COMPLAINT:

“Discovered medicine for Autism”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Autism is a neuro-developmental disorder in children (and continue to persist in adulthood) that has no known cure. This disorder is increasing in number worldwide and the emotional, social and financial burden is so huge. Parents run after each claim and spend huge money on it and get trapped. The particular advertisement. In reference claims that they have discovered a cure for autism. This is misleading, without proper evidence and can cause huge impact on the social fabric.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser provided video of patients testimonials/their feedback after the treatment. This data was not adequate to support the claim made. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Discovered medicine for Autism”, was not substantiated with objective clinical evidence and was misleading by gross exaggeration of claiming cure of autism. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd
PRODUCT: Lux Scented Gold offer

COMPLAINT:

Ads shown on SONY channel between 11:30 pm to 12:00 am midnight. They are showing that lux soaps contain gold jewellery like pendant. My complaint for this advertisement is that this is not fair practice. How can we know how many gold pendants are there? People buy for getting this pendent but there is no proof for that pendent as they putted or not in soap? Or if putted then in how many soaps?

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The claim in the TVC, “Pehli baar scented gold jewellery chupi hai hasaro lux mein”, was considered misleading. The report of Ernst & Young stating that the gold coins have been added in the ratio of 1:4 is appears highly unlikely as the number of coins stated to be inserted in the report is far less in comparison to the typical volume of mass production of soap. The claim, “jeetiye anokha khushbu bhara sona” implies that one will definitely avail the gold offer, which is misleading. Also, the advertiser has not stated clearly all material conditions so as to enable the consumer to obtain a true and fair view of their prospects in such activities. The TVC contravened Chapters I.4 and I.5(f) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: ADL Blastek Industries
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

This company has recently started manufacturing in June 2015 and have launched their website. The party has smuggled photos of machines shown in their website from other websites. These machines are never manufactured in their workshop and are not original photos. This is a serious offense. Such false- representation gives pseudo impression to the viewers as if these machines have been manufactured in their workshop and the photos are original.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the contents/photos of the machines shown on the Website and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the pictures of the machines shown are not original as they are not manufactured by the advertiser. In absence of a disclaimer, this is a mis-representation of facts which is likely to mislead the consumers. The Website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: CL Educate Ltd
PRODUCT: All India Mock IBPS PO Preliminary examination

COMPLAINT:

1. Compete with aspirants from 200 cities. 2. Over 1.2 million students trust CL with their exam preparation every year.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

These claims are unrealistic and have been used just to misguide the aspirants. There is no evidence for these claims that CL makes and these claims may be misleading.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “Compete with aspirants from 200 cities”, “Over 1.2 million students trust CL with their exam preparation every year”, were not substantiated. The Ad contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“First and only qualified Nephrologist of MP”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Advertisement which are considered as False, Misleading, illegal, leading to unsafe practices and unfair trade practice has been adopted. Claims are Misleading

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “First and only qualified Nephrologist of MP”, was not substantiated. The Ad contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Bharti Softbank Ltd
PRODUCT: Hike Messenger

COMPLAINT:

“5 times faster and 10 new features”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Are not substantiated nor are there any disclaimers

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the complainant. However, no response was received from the advertiser. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims in the Ad, “5 times faster” and “10 new features”, were not substantiated. The Ad contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Automotive Exchange Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: CarWale

COMPLAINT:

und), who are in need of blood. The need of blood is compromised to the extent of another blood group match i.e., AB instead of B and the doctor confirms thereby on phone and convince the family & patient that some difference i.e., 19/20 shall work "unnees bees to chalta hai". It is further to state that 19/20 campaign carried by the advertisement, compares that the company is more peculiar 'accurate' about its pricing policy rather than an 'approximate' values of matching standards of blood. The commercials advertisements carried is aired to entire community and retrospectively it reaches the 99% of the non-target audience (non intended car user) against the target audience of 1% (intended buyer and seller) approximately. Moreover, the largesse of the audience are either illiterate/semi-literate and/or intelligibly scarce to interpret the same to validity ofthe concept of 'accuracy' vis-a-vis 'approximate' or 'blood' visa-vis 'pricing' and may tends to accept that such mislead information which is carried by advertisement has no logical sanctity. The Blood transmission carried in respect of interchanged blood group is not only restricted to blood but also has massive standard of acceptance and rejection of recipient/donor relationship to the extent of RBC, WBC, Platelets & Plasmas for which the 'Unees/Bees' concept has substantial affects on the mind-set of the common people, the target and nontargeted audience of different categories, classification, occupation, vicinity, age group, genders etc. By and large the doctors are considered as net kin to 'god'. Besides the doctors &/or scientist/researchers shown in advertisements as shown at lab and research institutes in nature of its profession validate the authentication for the means of such advertisements, so as to appeal the audience (consumers) for any such brands. We have witnessed the same in various ads or commercials which have no direct impact on the human and its heath condition. However, the above referred advertisement has directly misguided the concept of 'doctors' 'profession' and 'blood' mechanism. Further in respect of ideas spread for the blood compromise is against the logical and world standard which are contrast to the blood bank, council and bodies of national and international. You may please to take an expert opinion about the same from the National Blood Transfusion Council (NACO), Medical Council of India (MCI), Indian Medical Association (IMA) for its standards and promotions. 3rd complainant- ad describing carwale's car price quotes compared to a bride's description in a matrimonial ad, an apartment's description in a real estate ad and a blood group inaccuracy, which are all described as unnis bees and approximate Sir, I am a doctor. While I viewed this ad which claims that carwale is very accurate in its car price quotes as opposed to some examples...the girl's description in a matrimonial ad,a "sea facing" description of a flat by a property dealer and finally the blood group details of a patient awaiting blood transfusion(blood group AB INSTEAD OF B!!).This is the part which infuriates me that the doctor in the ad says that this is ok. It is factually incorrect and gives the viewer a feeling that when it comes to blood transfusion, it’s OK. At a time, when we need to spread more awareness, with regards to safe blood transfusion practice’s, such misleading ads are demeaning the science and ethical practice of the medical fraternity. For the record, B blood group patient is not transfused AB group...in a dire emergency, its only O negative, which is acceptable.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the blood transfusion scene wherein a doctor suggests using a incompatible blood type “blood mein itna unees bees chalta hai”, shows a dangerous practice without justifiable reason. The TVC contravened Chapter III.3 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: M/s Tapan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd
PRODUCT: New Preet Lite

COMPLAINT:

Tapan Group’s webpage as well as TV commercials, New Preet Lite is advertised as a healthy and tasty cooking medium which is low in fat and cholesterol and consumers are called upon not to consume ghee anymore and instead use New Preet Lite. At the end of the electronic advertisement, a red cross sign is marked over a specific image of a packet of ghee to suggest to consumers to stop using ghee. Further, figurative children and adults are shown to be happily moving, running and playing around suggesting that the consumption of New Preet Lite would make them more energetic and healthier in body and mind as opposed to consuming ghee. A special web show in the name “preetlite kitchen” is also being hosted on youtube and the webpage of M/ s Tapan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd in which celebrities/chefs come and endorses the product. The host is often heard to say Preet Lite having “…Vahi purana Desi Swaad…” (English translation: the same old countryside/indigenous taste) thus, misleading consumers to use Preet Lite as a substitute for ghee. Also, a specific statement is made “…ab ghee nahi, sirf Preet Lite khaiyae…” (English translation: now, no more ghee, only eat Preet Lite) 1. Advertisement in the packaging/label In the packaging a comparative chart has been given to illustrate how Preet Lite is beneficial and better than ghee. On the label of the product, New Preet Lite, Proprietary food, it is written “…Vahi purana Desi Swaad…” (English translation: the same old countryside/indigenous taste) thus, misleading consumers to use Preet Lite as a substitute for ghee. By the descriptions, claims and comparisons and statements or visual presentations consumers are likely to be misled to believe and purchase New Preet Lite as a healthier and superior substitute of ghee paying almost an equal price as that of ghee while in reality the product is a combination of vanaspati and refined vegetable oils. Further, the advertisement chose ghee as a subject matter of comparison in a way so as to confer an artificial advantage to New Preet Lite. Also, the advertisement unfairly denigrates, attacks and discredits ghee directly as well as by implication. It is submitted that 95% of “New Preet Lite” is a combination of vanaspati and refined vegetable oils which has no specific/ pleasant taste, smell and flavour as that of ghee. M/ s Tapan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd has added ghee to the product just to give the taste and flavour of ghee to the product so that could be sold not as mere Vanaspati but as a substitute for ghee which has its own characteristic taste, smell and flavour. On the packaging as well as in electronic advertisements, New Preet Lite has been mentioned as a “COOKING MEDIA” which could be used for FRYING, COOKING and BAKING. Further, the following claim has also been made in Hindi: “Vahi purana Desi Swaad” (English translation: the same old countryside/indigenous taste) thus, misleading consumers to use Preet Lite as a substitute for ghee. Also, a specific statement “…ab ghee nahi, sirf Preet Lite khaiyae…” (English translation: now, no more ghee, only eat Preet Lite) is made in the Preet Lite Show which confers an artificial advantage to New Preet Lite. In the packaging, a comparative chart has also been given to illustrate how Preet Lite is beneficial and better than ghee like For e.g., Desi ghee has been stated to contain very high cholesterol rather than preet lite and that high cholesterol is the major cause for coronary heart disease (CHD) and other associated problems of heart. Also, it has been stated that Desi Ghee contains high trans-fat then Preet Lite and that high trans-fat acid has many adverse effects on health such as cancer, diabetes and obesity etc. Such claims made for New Preet Lite are not endorsed by the Food Authority and may mislead the consumer. Further, unsubstantiated and wrongful statements are made in respect of ghee for eg., trans fat in ghee is claimed to be 4.5. A comparative Nutritional Table between Ghee, New Preet Lite/Preet Lite and Vanaspati has also been provided in the product. The advertisements urges consumers to stop consuming ghee, 5% of ghee has actually been added to New Preet Lite to give it the characteristic aroma and taste of ghee so that consumers are misled to consume the same as a substitute for ghee.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser requested for a personal meeting on 11th September 2015 with the ASCI secretariat but did not attend. Meanwhile the advertiser provided their written comments on the complaint. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The advertise argues that the term “Ab ghee nahi” should be seen a statement that the advertised product is not ghee. Also advertiser believes that the information provided on pack / label is not an advertisement claim as it is viewed only by the consumer. The CCC viewed the TVC, pack label and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The label claims of superiority of preeti Lite cooking medium vs desi ghee and hydrogenated fats was not considered acceptable. Ghee is a natural animal fat with low molecular weight saturated fats that are easily digested and considered to be good in our daily diet. Presence of trans fat in ghee is by natural process and not by hydrogenation as in the case of hydrogenated fats. Preet Lite claims to contain 5 % milk fat. Milk Fat contains trans fat and cholesterol that advertiser recommends to avoid in daily diet. Blending, alone, will not make an oil composition better than Desi Ghee. Claims made for Preeti Lite cooking oil are not substantiated with comparative study reports. The Comparison Chart of Deshi Ghee, Preet Lite, and Hydrogenated Fat shown on the pack was not substantiated. All the three fats contribute same energy levels . Thus the claim of Preet Lite as against ghee and hydrogenated fat is not justified. The TVC depicting Desi Ghee being crossed off, reference of “Ab ghee nahi…” was misleading and the product pack unfairly denigrates desi ghee. The TVC and the promotion claims on the pack contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and IV.1 ( e) of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD. The CCC did not consider the reference of “Wahi purana desi swad” and the figurative children and adults shown on the pack to be objectionable. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Iberry India
PRODUCT: Iberry Auxus Beast

COMPLAINT:

I have purchase a phone Iberry Auxus Beast after Ebay has marketed for phone on internet media, claiming that it has tough screen, and same the Iberry team claimed on product page of ebay site. They have officially upload the videos on you-tube too regarding that the screen cannot broken by hammer. One of that video is linked to product page too. But my phone screen was broken by slight slipping from bed to floor. Please check the attached file. I have decribed everything in it. Previously I was ready to replace the screen but as Iberry people not accepting their fault, now I want refund of the product

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Iberry Auxus Beast is indeed a beast with its superior toughened glass technology … ”, the test demo video claim, “……. Notice the impact of the hammer hit on the screen but the screen is still intact”, was not substantiated with any lab test report (either of the advertiser’s own testing or independent lab test). The test demo video was not considered authentic. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Bloomberg TV India
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

“The market opens with Bloomberg TV India. The No.1 market opening show 9 a.m. – Street Smart Dealing Room. Factual. First. Fastest. Final. Future’, “When it comes to business and markets programming, Bloomberg TV India is the channel of choice”, “The most preferred destination for business and markets content. No. 1. Bloomberg TV India leads with 43% market share in the English Business News genre”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Reality Triumphs over noise. Pie-chart depicting 4 distinct bars depicting market share of 5 (five) separate channels in the descending order: 1. Bloomberg TV India - 43% 2. CNBC TV 18- 33% 3. ET Now -16% 4. NDTV Profit & NDTV Prime – 8% (aggregate share). Bloomberg BTV India, part of the world’s largest financial news network, leads with 43% market share in the English Business News genre. First. Fastest. Factual. Final. Pertinent to mention that, for all afore-mentioned claims the channel has relied upon purported data of Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC-TV Rating Agency) for the period of week 21 (mentioned in Annexure “A”) and week 22 (mentioned Annexure “A-1” & “A-2”). The source being – BARCI 6 Mega Cities M 22 + NCCS AB individuals WK 21’2015 I 0900:0930 Weekdays (25th -29th May 2015) for Annexure “A” and BARCI 6 Mega Cities + Gujarat I M 22 -50 NCCS AB individuals AB (Individual) I WK 22’2015 I 0600-2400 All days for Annexure “A-1” and “A-2”, respectively. Foremost, it is our contention that the BARC source used for claiming No.1 position and/or market share of 43% is based on the category which is conveniently created by the channel, to suit its cause. The created fanciful category is so apparent that, it doesn’t even require a second attention to catch the obvious mischief. The source of Annexure “A” for the period of week 21’ and 22’ is based on an artificially created category, which is neither recognized by BARC nor supported by BARC. Snap-shot of weekly rating for week -22 of 3 top English News Channels, generated by BARC and published on its official web-site –www.barcindia.co.in, proves it clearly. In fact, as published by BARC, the channel is at No. 3, position, and, most importantly, trailing by a huge margin as against the No. 1 & 2 channels, in terms of the rating numbers mentioned therein, which can readily seen. Thus, this proves our contention, that the source created by the channel itself is faulty, untrue, unauthenticated and deceptive. The unsubstantiated claims made by the channel in the impugned advertisements, which also shows a certain obsession for alphabet “F” (Please see – First. Fastest. Factual. Final. Future) thou extremely vague and misleading, are calculatedly made to harm the interests of other English Business News channels. None of the claims are substantiated by a separate source, other than that which is mentioned. And therefore, admittedly, all claims made in the impugned advertisement are based on the specified ‘BARC’ source, only. This is an open and shut case of unfair business practice, misleading of recipients of the impugned advertisements, and wilful and blatant violations of ASCI’s Regulations/Code.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print/website advertisements and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The advertiser argues that the BARC guidelines were published after the advertisements in question were released and therefore the guidelines cannot have retrospective applicability is fair and reasonable. However, all advertisements are subject to the ASCI Code, with or without the BARC guidelines. The advertisements have chosen a basis of comparison that bestows a specific and artificial advantage on the advertiser. BARC data is statistical and based on a sample. With or without the guidelines in place, all users of the data are expected to apply appropriate cautions to its usage, particularly when it comes to very small segments. The English Business News genre in toto represents a share of less than 0.01% of all viewership tracked by BARC. At that level, the errors of estimate are many times larger than the size of the estimated audience itself. Unequivocal and strong claims of leadership must be informed by this awareness. Based on the above opinion, the CCC concluded that all for all the three advertisements, the period of comparison is not adequate i.e. over at least four consecutive weeks. The audience definition chosen by the advertiser violates the principle that subject matter of comparison is not chosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser or so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The advertisements contravened Chapters I.1, I.3 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. The earlier decision of this complaint being Upheld stands on Review. Claims of “First. Fastest” calibrate size and speed of news delivery. They cannot merely be treated as 'Puffery'. Advertiser has not provided any evidence to substantiate these claims. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The earlier decision of this complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Kamdhenu Ispat Limited
PRODUCT: Kamdhenu SS 10000

COMPLAINT:

1. The company has created India's first steel brand. 2. Its double grips makes it double strong with concrete and claims that thus it gives one a 100% resistance to earthquakes. 3. Double powerful constructions as we have 2 ka dum.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

The advertisement starts in the backdrop of a lab. And a voice over says that the company has created India's first steel brand. Its double grips makes it double strong with concrete and claims that thus it gives one a 100% resistance to earthquakes. A certain Jason Sheroy designated as Senior Consultant in the ad comes at last to say that now we will create double powerful constructions as we have 2 ka dum. I have no idea that how we could allow a brand to prosper over people's fear of earthquakes. How could they claim to give 100% security from earthquakes? Either they should have tested it and mentioned the exact value on the Richter scale up to which they may endure it. Since I am pretty sure nothing would remain if we face an earthquake of over 9 on the Richter Scale. Any company must not make such false claims. I am not very sure about the first claim that this advertisement makes about creating the first Indian steel brand, which also I think is false. I would urge this ad to be off-aired with immediate effect and the company be fined for misleading people about a natural disaster putting all the ethics behind. And the channel/channels who weren't vigilant enough in their responsibility of choosing what to air and what not to, should run a apology from their side.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. Advertiser indicated that the TVC provided by the Complainant was never aired and provided with the correct version of the TVC that was aired. The claim support data for Review was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC provided by the Advertiser and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the meeting. The claim, “India's first steel brand”, is not part of the TVC aired. This complaint was NOT UPHELD Advertiser provided a test report (Annex R2) from IIT Roorkee relating to test of the concerned product. As per this report, the technical test as per BIS standard for pull-out strength was over 250% (over 2.5x or 2.5 times) of plain bar. Claim, “double grips makes it double strong with concrete”, is substantiated; However, it is misleading by omission of a disclaimer to indicate that the comparison is versus a plain bar. The testing of pull-out strength to 2.5x improvement over plain bar would afford it improvement in earthquake resistance but its quantitative effect on earthquake resistance is not demonstrated, and it cannot be said to be 100% resistance to earthquakes. The CCC concluded that the claim, “100% resistance to earthquakes”, was not substantiated. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

COMPANY: Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
PRODUCT: Act Fibernet

COMPLAINT:

“Unlimited 5 Mbps and 20 Mpbs starting at Rs 650”

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

Act Fibernet has placed ads as flex printouts/billboards and also on their official website and Facebook page stating, Unlimited 5 Mbps and 20 Mpbs starting at Rs 650. When I contacted the customer care, they mentioned the rate 650 is only for 5 Mbps and not for 20 Mbps. When they say 20Mbps plan starting at Rs 650, there has to be a plan starting at Rs 650 for 20 Mbps. This not being the case, i feel the ad is highly misleading.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for Review. The CCC concluded that the claim in the Ad, “Unlimited 5 Mbps and 20 Mpbs starting at Rs 650”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and omission of a qualifier stating that Rs. 650/- is only for the package offering data transfer at 5 Mbps. The Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.

 

COMPANY: Flipkart Internet Private Limited (“Did you know beauty breeds success?”)
PRODUCT:

COMPLAINT:

The ad is quoted as follows: Did you know beauty breeds success? Research shows that beautiful women are more successful in their lives. This is because when women improve their appearances, they get noticed, listened to and eventually respected for their opinion. Such women not only become confident but also remain motivated to perform even better in life. Every woman has the capacity to look beautiful, irrespective of the age, weight, height and complexion. The idea is to make the most of the looks one is born with. Regular care of hair & nails, makeup to enhance your natural beauty, good clothes to accentuates the body contours, and comfortable shoes to complete the look, are time-tested beauty regime every woman should follow. And since a woman of this age is always on-the-go and with so much to do, we have brought all these beauty & lifestyle products right on the mobile sets.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

This advertisement is unethical. It feeds on perceived insecurities of consumers and attributes its findings (about beauty breeding success) to some vague "research". In the first line of its deeply backward advertising gimmick, the write up does not make any distinction between "beautiful women" and "well-dressed" women, damaging the veneer of ethics the marketing team is clearly trying to hide behind (as it does when it suggests that anybody can be beautiful irrespective of age, weight and what not). I can only imagine that women will be "noticed" if they speak up, listened to if they make intelligent conversation and eventually respected for their opinion, and NOT for their wardrobe collection.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

nts from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim in the mailer, “Research shows that beautiful women are more successful in their lives”, was not substantiated. The promotional mailer contravened Chapter I.1 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: HDFC Bank Ltd
PRODUCT: Two Wheel loan offer

COMPLAINT:

1. LOAN APPROVAL IN 15 MINUTES ONLY KYC REQUIRED TO AVAIL A LOAN

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

I am an existing customer of HDFC BANK Raipur Jaistambh Chowk Branch and I have a saving account in the bank. On 12th August 2015 I received a mail offer where I was offered Two Wheeler Loan in following terms Considering the above mentioned offers I visited the main branch Devendera Nagar Raipur and applied for the loan on 19/08/15 and submitted the required documents on 20/08/15. Even after showing the copy of mail for above mentioned offer I was asked following documents by the banker: 1. KYC 2. Processing fee 3 .5% 3. ROI 11% 4. DOCUMENTS (Last Two Years ITR Now my question is if you send your existing customer an offer where you mention loan approval in 15 minutes and its 22/08/15 still not approved, processing 50% off and still asking 3.5%, ROI 2% lower but still asking 11% and the most important ONLY KYC REQUIRED TO AVAIL LOAN and still asking ITR of last two years. It seems that your bank is making false proclamation and at the time of reality all your proclamations are turning to mendacity it’s a sheer waste of Customer’s time I would have purchased my bike two days back if I would have chosen to get it financed from other banks.

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The advertiser representatives were given personal hearing by ASCI. The CCC viewed the promotional mailer and considered the Advertiser’s response. Advertiser provided list of few customers (9) who have availed Two Wheeler Loan from HDFC Bank under this offer. ASCI Secretariat called some of the customers from this list (PS, RP, AG, AB), who informed that they did not get the loan approval in 15 minutes as claimed. The claim, “Loan approval in 15 minutes”, was not substantiated. Also, the claim, “Only KYC required to avail a loan”, is misleading as other documents are also required to be submitted to avail the loan facility and the CCC opined that the Terms and Conditions in the advertisement cannot over-ride the claim in the advertisement. The Promotional mailer contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Godaddy.com
PRODUCT: terradynecorp.com – promotional offer

COMPLAINT:

GoDaddy.com is taking an additional Rs.40 without any reason .Your company seems unable to decide whether the annual price is Rs.959 or Rs.599. Due to this, GoDaddy.com has been caught red handed by a simple mathematical miscalculation, which people either tend to overlook or even forgive. Your attempts at convincing me that each domain has a different price (within *.com) is vague, and merely stating that you cannot get into details is an absolutely weak response on behalf of GoDaddy. GoDaddy is using misleading statements in promotional offers on its page, and misrepresenting the product at hand. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, your company is guilty of attempting to trick your customers into paying more than they actually should. If you have done this to the 13mn customers who you claim to have signed up, you could have made at least Rs.520,000,000 (US$7.5mn+).

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

Advertiser’s response was due on 28th September 2015. No response was received from the advertiser prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the website advertisement and concluded that the offer for two year registration was not false. However, there was a discrepancy of an additional charge of Rs 40 that was not accounted for. The advertisement was considered to be misleading by omission of mention of this additional charge. The website advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 of the Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

 

COMPANY: Flipkart Internet Private Limited
PRODUCT: Microsoft Lumia 640

COMPLAINT:

Flipkart.com is exclusively selling Microsoft Lumia 640 device in India. They are luring customers by providing false information about one Office 365 Offer on this device. I ordered this device on 8th August and paid through my debit card. When I raised a complaint regarding this offer they first kept me waiting and after delaying for 17 days they finally cancelled my order as they could not keep their false promise regarding this offer. I placed this order on 8th of August with order ID OD003588391788812700. Under this order there were two items, one 'Mi Pad' was successfully delivered to me on 13th of August while this one 'Microsoft Lumia 640’ was promised to be delivered before 3rd of September. On 10th August I searched on google for 'Microsoft Office 365 Offer' then I got to know that this offer was valid for phones purchased on or before 30 June 2015 and buyers had to redeem it on or before 14th August 2015. Knowing this I asked flipkart customer support at 1800 208 9898 about this offer they told me that I will be able to avail this offer once this phone gets delivered to me. I requested them to ensure that phone gets delivered to me on or before 14th of August so that I can redeem this offer. So I believed them an decided to wait until 3rd of September. On the evening of 2nd September I noticed that they have not yet shipped the phone on my flipkart account. Then knowing for sure that they will not be able to deliver it on promised date, I sent them an email in which I warned them for a legal recourse if they don't deliver my phone. Just 2 Hours after that email I received an SMS informing me of order cancellation due to unavailability of phone. Now after 26 days they were informing me about unavailability of phone whereas earlier they were assuring me of its timely delivery. Besides phone was 'in stock' and available when I had placed the order. They had reserved one phone for me after i placed the order, as they had told me in one email response. Even after cancelling of my order the phone was available on their online store thought in different colors. Therefore i even requested them to give me a different color phone but they refused to do so. It is evident that they cancelled my order because firstly, they could not keep their false promise about 'Microsoft office 365 Offer' as it had expired, secondly if they would have delivered phone without this offer then it would have been a liability for them to provide a commensurate compensation to me. To avert any such liability they simply decided to cancel my order. Still the big fraud is that they have yet not removed these misleading information about this offer on their website. You can still see it on the product page of 'Microsoft Lumia 640' on flipkart.com. I have requested them to remove this misleading information but their deliberate inaction in this regard shows their intention to lure customers in buying this phone.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

 

RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response. The “Office 365 Offer on Microsoft Lumia 640 device” was valid for the period 7th of April 2015 to 30th of June 2015. Complainant ordered for the purchase of this device on 8th August 2015 which was after the due date of the offer. The CCC concluded that the claim offer is not false. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

 
 

Complaint to
WhatsApp
DID YOU KNOW?

Developed by Wishtree Technologies LLP