ASCI upholds complaints against 51 of 98 ads in Oct 2015

30 Dec,2015

By A Correspondent


In October 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 51 out of 98 advertisements. Of the 51 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 16 belonged to the Personal and Healthcare category, followed by 19 advertisements in the Education category, 5 in Telecommunication and Broadband category and 11 advertisements from other categories.



The CCC found the following claims in health and personal care product or service advertisements of 15 advertisers to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.

1. Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. (Pantene Shampoo): The claim of “New” in the advertisement of Pantene Shampoo is not qualified as per the ASCI Guidelines to elaborate that this refers to product upgrade. Thus, it was concluded that the advertisement is misleading by omission of this disclaimer.


2. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Enamel Repair): It was concluded that the advertisement’s claim in the voice over of “enamel repair” as well as the visual representation which indicate that the tooth enamel is restored to its original condition or is re-built, was not substantiated.


3. Novartis India Limited (Otrivin Nasal Spray): Otrivin is an OTC product containing Xylometazoline which could cause Atrophic Rhinitis if not used as directed. Aggressive advertising without providing information about the caution to be exercised can promote indiscriminate use of the product among the general public. It was noted that the package insert of the product has necessary caution statements; however, reference to any usage indication is absent in the advertisement. It was concluded that in the absence of a disclaimer, the TVC shows an unsafe practice without justifiable reason and encourages negligence.


4. Dabur India Limited (Dabur Odomos Mosquito Repellant): The claim in the advertisement, “It is clinically proven that Odomos offers the most effective outdoor defence against mosquitoes for as long as 12 hours”, that is presented in the context of protection of Dengue mosquitoes was not substantiated adequately.


5. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (Patanjali Kesh Kanti): The claims in the advertisement, “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand” and “100% charity from Profits” were not substantiated.


6. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (Patanjali Dant Kanti): The claims “World’s No.1 Ayurvedic Brand”, also the claimed benefits of the ingredients (such as Akarakara, Tumburu, Babool, Vajradanti, Majuphal, Margosa/Neem, Vidang, Turmeric, Clove, Mint, Pippali, Bakul, and Peeloo,) and “100% charity from Profits”, were not substantiated and were misleading.


7.      Apollo Pharmacy (Free home delivery service): It was concluded that the claim, “Free Home delivery service”, is misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which the claim is tenable.


8.      Dr. Ved Vyas Mishra (Treatment for Various ailments):  It was concluded that the claims in the advertisement, “Complete safe treatment through Homeopathy medicine”, “guaranteed treatment through Homeopathic medicines for Piles, Skin, Impotency, Infertility, Kidney stone, Migraine, Blood Pressure, Hair falling, Pimples, Gas acidity, weight loss etc”, were not substantiated. Specific to the claims related to guaranteed treatment for impotency, infertility, kidney stone and blood pressure, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act.   Also, specific to the claims related to treatment for piles, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violates Schedule J of The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.


9.      Sanjay (Ayurvedic Pvt Ltd – Ghuti +) Baljiwan Pharmacy: The claim in the advertisement, “Continuous service for the last 102 years”, was not substantiated.


10.  Glamour World Ayurvedic Co Pvt Ltd (Rocket Capsules): The claims in the advertisement, “With the magic of Rocket anyone can stand up today”, “One would feel the effect in three days” and “Men and women can enjoy the benefits of this medicine till seventy years of age”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data or approval from the licensing authority. Also, the claims read in conjunction with the visual imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, which is in breach of the law.


11.  MK Agrotech Private Ltd. (Sunpure Refined Sunflower Oil): The claim in the advertisement which states, “India’s first chemical free processed sunflower oil with no harmful additives / preservatives” was considered to be misleading by implication. The advertisement unfairly denigrates oils undergoing regular processing. Also, the claim, “Rich with Natural vitamins”, was not substantiated. In addition no analytical test reports have been submitted to substantiate the claims of “Fresh”; “Healthy”; “all natural”; “natural vitamins”.


12.  Vibes Healthcare Limited (Vibes Weight Loss Assurance): The claim in the advertisement, “Vibes weight loss assurance” was not substantiated.


13.  Dr. Gupta’s Clinic: The claim in the Advertisement, “Dr Guptas Clinic is the country’s No.1 sexual disease treatment center”, was not substantiated.


14.  Raghav Lifestyle Products (Ajay Toothpaste): The claims on the pack of the product which state, “5x clove power vs. non clove toothpaste”, “Superior cavity protection”, “Advanced formulation”, “Complete natural protection”, were not substantiated and were misleading in nature.


15.  The Bodycare: The claim in the advertisement, “Get Services worth Rs.5000 for Rs.49 only”, was found to be false and misleading by omission of a disclaimer qualifying the conditions under which this claim is tenable.


16.  Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Nutrislim): The advertisement shows “a man refusing to take his wife to official party because she is fat” and implies that only slim women are considered to be beautiful, derides women and is derogatory especially for women who are overweight.



The CCC found that claims in the 19 advertisements were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.

1.      Byju Classes (GRE Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “Why is success guaranteed in GRE with Mumbai’s top GRE coaching classes – BYJU’S classes?”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any verbal question using our Mathematical Approach”, “Best Teacher & comprehensive course content” and “70% of our students cross 320 in GRE with our courses”, were not substantiated.


2.      Byju Classes (CAT Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “Bell the CAT with India’s No.1 CAT Trainers”, “2000 students attend BYJU’s Classes together in a single batch in single center – making it India’s Biggest Classroom” and “Byju Raveendran serial CAT topper & No. 1 trainer for the CAT”,  were not substantiated.


3.      Byju Classes (GMAT Coaching Classes): The claims in the advertisement, “70% of our students have a score of 700+ in GMAT”, “60 sec is what you need to crack any GMAT verbal question using our Patented Mathematical Approach”, “760 is the minimum GMAT score of our trainers” and “We are exclusive education partner with Samsung, The Times of India, The Hindu”, were not substantiated with evidence.


4.      Byju Classes:  The claims in the advertisement, “Best CAT Coaching Institute in India”, “GMAT Topper”, “Unique CAT Pattern Workshop”, “Can’t Compare with Byju & Santosh”, “Study Material of Most of the Institutes have no value differentiation”, “80% of the students have crossed 90 percentile over the last 5 years”, “Unique Approach to RC”, “Best Team of IAS Trainers”, “India’s No. Aptitude Trainer”, “India’s #1 IAS faculty”, “20,000 test-takers across the country”, “No National Level Tests” and “Best Teachers”, were not substantiated.

5.      CL Educate Ltd. (Career Launcher): The claims in the advertisement, “CAT Test Series – The No.1 Cat Test Series Program”, “Most recommended test series”, “Rated the best by students”, “True percentile predictor”, were not substantiated adequately.


6.      Rao Edusolutions Pvt Ltd. (Rao IIT Academy): The claims in the advertisement, “India’s most dominating results in JEE Advanced 2015”,  “8 out every 10 RIITians qualify in MH-CET” and  “Number of students selected from Mumbai” (graph showing year of JEE Advanced), were not substantiated with supporting data.


7.      Exam Victor (Online MBA Entrance Coaching): The claims in the advertisement, “India’s Finest Online MBA Entrance Coaching. Period”, “The Best Faculty-Each lecture, every problem and each video is painstakingly hand-crafted by Vivek, an alumnus of IIT Bombay and IIM Ahmedabad. So you can rest assured that your study material is of the highest quality”, “Individual Attention-Making you an Exam Victor is our only priority. We leverage the best technology and cutting-edge analytics to closely follow your progress and provide you timely feedback”, “How is learning online with ExamVictor better?” and “Most classes employ regular graduates of variable quality”, were not substantiated.


8.      Career Institute of Commerce & Accounting: The advertisement claiming rank after 10, was not substantiated.


9.      IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. (MBA CET): The advertiser argues that the term “Trusted for Success” is their logo and 15000+ students enrolling with their institute signifies their trust in the institute.  The CCC did not consider enrolment of students to be necessarily an indicator of their trust in the institute.

Post a Comment 

Comments are closed.

Today's Top Stories