Best Media Info

Editor’s Picks
Special
Interviews
Events
IRS 2017

Guest Times

February 2017: ASCI upheld complaints against 242 misleading ads

ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 242 out of 305 advertisements. The categories were Healthcare, Education, Food & Beverages, Personal Care Category and others

In February 2017, The Advertising Standards Council of India’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 242 out of 305 advertisements. Out of 242 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 165 belonged to the Healthcare category, 31 to the Education category, followed by 19 in the Food & Beverages category, 9 in Personal Care Category, and 18 advertisements from other categories.

Healthcare

The CCC found the following claims of 166 advertisements in health care products or services 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. Rudralife (Rudrakash Therapy): The advertisement’s claims, “Rudraksha Therapy”,  “Rudraksha for you to achieve growth, success and wellbeing”, “They provide Rudraksha tested in a ISO 9001-2015 certified laboratory” and “Hold five patents on medicinal usages of Rudraksha”, were not proven with authentic supporting data, and are misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also, the advertisement exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.
  2. Slim-N-Health: The advertisement’s claims (in Marathi) as translated into English, “Kavy Lypolysis is a new method due to which we can give proper shape to the body and eliminate obesity by reducing fat permanently”, were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration regarding permanent fat reduction.  Also, with reference to obesity (“latthapanna”), the advertisement is misleading by implication that the treatment would cure obesity and therefore is in breach of the law as it violated the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act).

 

  1. Ayurwin Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (Ayurwin Nutri Slim+ Powder): The advertisement’s testimonial claim (in Hindi) as translated into English, “Last year due to obesity, I decided to get slim by using Ayurwin Nutrislim. After using it, for few months I got a beautiful and slim body”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also, specific to the claims implying cure for obesity (“bhahut motapa”), and the visual showing a slim model, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

 

 

  1. Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Nutrislim Plus Range of Products - Powder & Capsules): The advertisement’s claim, “For becoming slim- Nutrislim Plus”, was not substantiated with any product efficacy data and is misleading by gross exaggeration. 

 

 

  1. Guduchi The Ayurvedism (Obesidat): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s First Scientifically Proven Research Based Ayurvedic Weight Loss Tablet” is misleading by exaggeration. Also the claims,   “Obesidat helps lose weight in diabetic, PCOD & Thyroid patients” and “Weight once lost from Obesidat will not be regained back”, were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading. Further the claims, “Obesidat removes unwanted fat by correcting cell to cell metabolism” and “Obesidat initiates cell to cell metabolism and helps in removing bad cholesterol”, were inadequately substantiated as the data shows partially confirmed as per Pharmacological studies, and the data is based on studies conducted in rats. As for the claim, “Certified by Ayush Board”, the CCC noted that the advertiser has only a licence to manufacture the product.  The CCC was of the view that Ayush gives approval only for manufacturing the product, but not for the claims being made in the advertisement.  The logo showing Ayush approval implies that all the claims made in the advertisement are certified by Ayush, which is misleading by ambiguity and implication.  Also, efficacy being depicted via visual transformation is misleading by exaggeration, and when seen in conjunction with the product name, implies cure for obesity (unwanted fat) which is in breach of the law as it violated The DMR Act.

 

  1. Adila Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (Asth Prash): The advertisement claims (in Hindi) as translated into English, “rare herbs present in Asth Prash remove the tar and cough stuck in lungs” and “Makes lungs strong and improves respiration process”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy,  and are misleading.  The visual showing cleaning up of lungs was also misleading.

 

  1. Sri Ram Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Avoid operation, successful treatment of piles through injection” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Janta Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Avoid operation, successful treatment of piles through injection” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shivansh Ayurveda (Shivansh Ayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “Adopt Ayurveda for increasing physical power”, and the visual implies that the product is meant to enhance sexual potency which is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Bengali Dawakhana: The advertisement’s claims, “Get your years of lost strength & youth in few days”, “Take treatment of increased prostate without operation” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Bengali Dawakhana: The advertisement’s claim, “Quit alcohol without bringing (patient) and without consultation” was not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence, and is grossly misleading by exaggeration.   

 

  1. Naturo Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of heart, mental disease, paralysis, epilepsy, venereal disease and diabetes” are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Balaji Ayurved Sansthan (Breast Care Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Give a new glow to your personality”, “Use Breast Care - a herbal, safe & easy way to give the correct shape and size to your happiness, enhance the size of your beauty” and the visual in the advertisement and the product name, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for breast enhancement. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Vijaya Ayurvedic Pharma (Vijaya Ayurvedic Pharma Tabletx): The advertisement’s claims, “Diabetes will be normal completely”, “For preventing diabetes, Vijaya Ayurvedic Pharma has prepared medicine; by consuming this medicine problems which occur from diabetes will be cured.” “This Ayurvedic medicine keeps diabetes in control in few days” are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. The Ano-Rectal Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “For the first time in Uttar Pradesh successful treatment of piles, fistula & other diseases of anus through laser method”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Koya Range of Products: The advertisement’s claims, “Excellent Ayurvedic medicine of premature ejaculation and impotence,” “Feeling of youthfulness at the age of 60”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dolphin Labs (Anaconda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Feeling of amazing power in seconds, grasp the time”, “Only solution of problems like weakness in nerves, penis shrinkage, lack of vigour and premature ejaculation, serpentine, thin & small organ” and the visual in the advertisement and package, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Izda Healthcare (Six Foot Range of Products): The advertisement of Six Foot (Powder and Syrup for Adults and Children) claims, “A six foot youth can be noticed from a far”, “Helpful in physical development” and the product name and visual in the advertisement together with product packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant to increase the stature of children and adults. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Izda Healthcare (Depforce): The advertisement’s claims, “Bring new vigour and enthusiasm in your life. We have full trust that you will forget any other Ayurvedic capsule, tablet and syrup”, “One supplement gives the effect for two days”, “Not only men, even women  have a right to complete sexual satisfaction”, “Hard as stone” and the visual on the package, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

 

  1. Izda Healthcare (Depforce): The visual in the advertisement, and the product packaging read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

 

  1. Maghil Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Permanent solution for Impotency, Infertility”, “Impotency - Our Maghil homeopathy clinic cures it without any side effects” and “Infertility - Inadequate growth of women ovary, frequent abortion, ovary tube blockage, excess period, cist formation are the reasons for infertility, cures it without any side effects” , are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dwl (Yonsuk Gold Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Strength of Swarn bhasm, for golden moments”, “Endless Power For Endless, Happiness” and the product name on the packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Care & Cure Herbals (Shots Range of Products): The advertisement’s clams, “An innovative formula for men”, perform like a man”, “Now gel has more power than oil” and the visual on the packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Agrawal Fertility & Test Tube Baby Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Makes your dream of becoming a father come true”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Hashmi Herbal (Sikandar-E-Azam Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Indrivardhak capsule available in India”, “New trust in just one capsule”, “Removes premature ejaculation & make organ strong” and “Removes weakness of nerves, premature ejaculation, nightfall, impotence. Desired sex time”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Saaol Heart Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Freedom from heart blockages through natural bypass (ECP Therapy) without surgery, without bypass, without Angioplasty”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Ruchi Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Long Drive Range Of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “No age limit, No timing restriction”, “An ideal course for 21 days” and the visual in the advertisement and product name, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Tirupati Pharmacy (Jeevan Shakti Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Get the vigour of 30 at the age of 60”, “Jeevan Shakti - Power enhancing capsules”, “Power Booster for Men” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shilajit Musli Prash Kit: The advertisement’s claims, “Power of Safed Musli & Shilajit, for both men & women, beneficial for age up to 77, just one month course,” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dr Sagar Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Operation less permanent treatment of piles, fistula and fissure” and “Successful Ayurvedic treatment for chronic piles, fistula and fissure”,  are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Soliel Intl (BT-36 Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “BT-36 is very helpful for modern women. Helpful for perfect, firm, beautiful and healthy breast growth” and the visual in the advertisement and product name, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product and product name is meant for breast enhancement. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Baidyanath Ayur Bhawan (Baidyanath Vita Ex Gold Plus): The advertisement’s claims, “Never Lets You down, “For Youthful energy” and the visual in the advertisement and package, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Such claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Baidyanath Ayur Bhawan (Baidyanath Vita Ex Gold Plus): The advertisement’s claims, “Never lets you down for a long time”, “For Vigour, Vitality and Stamina” and the visual in the advertisement & packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Dr Bharti Holistic Health Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Successful treatment of rheumatoid arthritis” and “Successful treatment of lupus”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Jagat Pharma (Isotine Ayurvedic Eye Drops): The advertisement claims, “Ayurvedic eye drop that Cures cataract & other incurable eye diseases without surgery - Improve vision and getting rid of spectacles”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Vaso Meditech Pvt. Ltd. (Heal Your Heart): The advertisement’s claims, “Heal your heart” is likely to mislead the consumers that the EECP treatment advertised is the mainstay of the treatment of the acute heart attack which is not true since, according to the advertiser, EECP is an emerging (means not yet fully accepted the world over) non-invasive treatment for patient with chronic stable angina with preserved and compromised left ventricular function. Hence this claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. Further the claim, “Approved            by US-FDA and Govt of Tamil Nadu”, is likely to mislead the consumers to believe that these regulatory authorities approve this modality of management as a choice by them. They have only approved the equipment and not certified the results nor recommended its use by the public without any medical advice. This claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also the claim, “Simple non invasive treatment for chest pain and heart attack”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by omission. 

 

  1. Nanal Ayurveda Consultancy (Vaidya Nanals Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Freedom from stretch marks” was considered to an absolute claim and it was concluded that the claim was inadequately substantiated. Also the claim, “More effective than other medicines”, was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar products in the same category.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Hamdard Laboratories (India) (Hamdard Jigreen): The advertisement’s claim, “Protects from jaundice” (“Jaundice se suraksha”), was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by implication. 

 

  1. Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd. (Amrutanjan Relief Cough Syrup): The advertisement’s claims “It works five times better” is misleading by ambiguity and implication.  It was noted that the advertiser intended to convey that the product has a five way action. However, in the advertisement it has been conveyed as “five times action”. The benefits of five ingredients is not equivalent to “five times” benefit, hence it was considered to be a misrepresentation of the product benefit.

 

  1. Spar Detox Clinic and Medi Facial: The advertisement’s claims, “Guaranteed inch loss and weight loss”,  “No exercise, no medicine, no surgery, no dieting”,  “Detox also lowers, stress, blood sugar, relieves arthritis, joint pain BP and sinus”,  were not substantiated with  clinical evidence of treatment efficacy, and are misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. Further the claim, “FDA approved”, was not proven with supporting data and is misleading.  Also, efficacy being depicted via images of “before and after the treatment” is misleading. 

 

  1. Trophic Wellness Pvt. Ltd (Nutricharge Products):- The advertisement’s claims, “Unmatched scientific formulations made from ingredients sourced from across the world”, “Clinically proven”, “International quality supplements priced for the Indian pocket”, “Nutricharge products are health supplements not for medicinal use” and “100% vegetarian product”, were not substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity and implication as the advertiser has not submitted relevant data in support of their claims. Also while the advertiser provided few reference to awards received by them, the claim, “The most awarded and fastest growing brand”,  was considered to be an absolute claim, not substantiated with any comparative data versus other brands, and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Sri Varma Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Diabetes can be cured through our treatment”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Sri Varma Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Through Sree Varma's Ayurveda pachkarma treatment get changes in 90 to 180 days” and “Varicose Veins - Through our treatment it can be cured” , are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Sri Varma Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “For long lasting stomach pain, ulcer, inner piles, outer piles, anus problems- Cure without operation & lifelong relief” , are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shifa Health Care Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “piles, fistula, fissures cures without operation”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dindayal Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd. (303 Capsules): The visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, the advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Chaturbhuj Pharma Company (Japani Capsule Range M & F): The visual on the packaging in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Chaturbhuj Pharma Company (Japani Oil): The visual on the packaging in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company (Right Sugar Tablet): The advertisement’s claim, “Madhumeh (Sugar) praband ki dava right sugar tablet ka nirman Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutical Company dyara kiya ja raha hai jo ki aab sarvasulabh hai” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Capsule): The visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Oil): The visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to, implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win plus Capsule): The visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to, implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Realization of love for longer duration” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin Capsule): The advertisement’s claim, “Helps in preventing premature ejaculation” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. The claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin Plus Capsules): The visual in the advertisement and read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. The advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.      

 

  1. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin Plus Capsules): The visual in the advertisement and read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of a sexual pleasure. The advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Oral Liquid): The claims in the advertisement imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Range Of Products): The visual in the advertisement & packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to, implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay On Power Capsule): The visuals in the advertisement & packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to, implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal   (Stay-On Power Oil): The visual on the packaging in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected, to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Hence, it is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay on Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Feeling of strength and absolute vigour”, “Whenever you think power think Stay-On”, “Be it sports, profession leadership or relationship, you need power. To surmount any obstacle you need power. That's where Stay On, the power capsule works wonders” and the visuals in the advertisement and product packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Thus, these claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Oral Liquid): The advertisement’s claims, “Rediscover stamina & energy of your youth”, “Fills your life with excitement, youthfulness and power” and the visuals in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Oral Liquid): The visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims in the advertisement implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. The advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay on Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claim, “Lakhs together people have started their lives again with the same energy and gusto with their life partners” and the visuals in the advertisement and product packaging, read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. The claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. S2Slim Care: The advertisement claims, “Say Goodbye to Fat Forever, Lose Weight Fast and Safely with New Korean Technology”, and “No Exercise, No Crash Diet, No Medicines, No Side Effect”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  The efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading by gross exaggeration.

 

  1. Delhi IVF And Fertility Research Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Childlessness? No Problem (Don’t Lose Hope) we have Viable Solution for every Problem”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence.  Further the claim, “Oldest and most successful IVF Clinic”, was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar clinics in the same category, nor any independent audit or verification certificate, and is misleading and implies treatment for infertility, which is in breach of the law as it violates the DMR Act.

 

  1. Blizz Biosculpting: The advertisement’s claims, “Advanced Fusion Technology for Instant Results!!!” and “Lose two inches in one session & reshaping of Specific Areas”, were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment details,  and are misleading by exaggeration.  The efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading by gross exaggeration.

 

  1. Vibes Healthcare Limited (Vibes Centre): The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of excess fat without any surgery” and “Lose five to seven centimetres in one session and get three kilograms weight loss free”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Further the claim, “FDA Approved”, was not proven with supporting data, and is misleading by ambiguity and implication.  Also, the visual in the advertisement appears to be misleading.

 

  1. Viva Live the Life: The advertisement’s claim, “Cavi Lipolysis for permanent & guaranteed fat loss”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. Also, the visual in the advertisement appears to be misleading.

 

  1. Butterfly Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (Pancreofly Blood glucose Metabolizer): The advertisement’s claims, “Butterfly Ayurveda Pancreofly Capsule is a clinically evaluated, unique combination of herbal extracts”,  “Helps in minimizing long term diabetic complications - peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy and male impotency”, “It helps in maintaining healthy cholesterol” and “Pancreofly Capsules help you in preventing or curing diabetes in all forms and enhancing life for a healthier tomorrow”,  were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Specific to the claims related to cure for Diabetes, the e-mailer advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.

 

  1. Herbal Icon India Company (Sora GM Kit): The advertisement’s claims (in Hindi) as translated into English, “Freedom from Psoriasis” and “Sora- GM Kit is proved first successful Ayurvedic medicine to stop the Psoriasis problem permanently”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy. Also, the claims are grossly misleading.

 

  1. Zee Laboratories Limited (Zeegold Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Daily Nutritional Supplement”, “Remove fatigue, get success” and “Complete nourishment every day”, were not substantiated with any product efficacy data and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  Also the claim, “India's most popular Zeegold Strong Capsules”, was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar products in the same category, and is misleading by exaggeration. 

 

  1. Jolly Healthcare (Fat Go Slimming Capsules, Powder and Oil): The advertisement’s claims, “Jolly Fat Go - Shape me” and “Jolly Fat go has made me Slim, Smart and Fit”, were inadequately substantiated with evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by exaggeration. 

 

  1. Jolly Pharma (Jolly Sunsex Gold Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “for joyous married life ... Jolly Sunsex Gold Capsule is 100% Ayurvedic which increases energy and power in the body” and the visual in the advertisement and product name, read in conjunction with the claims objected to, implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Tulsi Health Care (True Ayurveda Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claims, “Controls hair fall in three days” and “Growth of hair up to two inches within 35 days”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

 

  1. Dhanvantri Clinic (Dhanvantri Ayurvedic): The advertisement’s claims, “Now Get Freedom from the spinal problems” and “Now No need for operation - because you will get permanent freedom through pure Ayurvedic medicine and researched treatments”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

 

  1. K S Varier’s Ashtanga Ayurvedics (P) Ltd. (Ashtanga Leno Drink): The advertisement’s claims, “Lose Weight” and  “Benefits: - Helps enhance metabolism - Helps increase fat burning - Helps reduce excess weight - Helps protect Liver - Helps fight urinary infections - Immuno-modulator”, were inadequately substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy and are misleading by ambiguity and gross exaggeration.  Furthermore, efficacy being depicted via visual on the pack of the transformation of a fat person to a thin person is misleading.

 

  1. Nu Ayurveda Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “That Nu Ayurveda can heal Obesity: Herbs & Panchkarma treatments help liquefy the excess fat and facilitate its excretion through urine. Also inhibits the conversion of glucose to fat, thereby maintaining the weight loss that has been achieved,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Balaji Ayurved Sansthan (Breast Care Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Give a New Size to your beauty.” and the visual in the advertisement and the product name, read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for breast enhancement. Hence, the advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Kims Healthcare Mgmt Ltd. (Kims Weight Management Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “Come Out Of Obesity” and “Comprehensive treatment for obesity,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. New Model Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Ayurvedic treatment of sex problems”, “Patients Depressed from all ways should surely meet once, that too with full trust. Removes body weakness increases Strength and Pep.” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the treatment is meant for improvement of sexual capacity. Thus, the advertisement is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shubham Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Permanent treatment without operation- fistula, deafness”, “Congenital deafness. A deaf and dumb child can hear now” and “Permanent treatment of Fistula, Piles without operation” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Amina Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “To cure sex problems and get baby”, “For incurable and long lasting diseases, ultra tech Unani treatment will be offered without operation”, “Special treatments: Good treatment for kidney stones, Men sex problems, Complete solution to get fertility for men, Before and after marriage treatment, Piles, VD Skin diseases, Diabetics, Kidney failure, Ulcer, Asthma and Men and women impotency” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

 

  1. Ram Swarna Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Urinary bladder stone can be treated in one day medicine. Pitha bag stone can be treated in one month medicine. Kanaya stone can be treated in one month medicine. In our treatment all the stones will be dissolved and the stones which are not dissolved will be pushed out” and “Herbal treatment without surgery also other types of diseases such as piles, ulcer, asthma will be treated in short duration” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Jeevan Pharmacy: The advertisement’s claims, “Masculine weakness, nightfall, premature ejaculation, discharge, lack of sperm” and “Get strength, vigour and youth back , reduce weight and make health” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act

 

  1. Meeta Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Consult for weakness in nerves due to diabetes, obesity or childhood mistakes, sperm, loose organ, long organ, thick organ, discharge, impotence, tremendous sex power and nightfall”,  “Before marriage and after marriage” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. As such, they were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Gautam Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “India's No.1, Ayurvedic Sexual Health Clinic” and “100 successful Ayurvedic treatments” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Repl India (Hypower Musli Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “HYPOWER MUSLI CAPSULE - Unique experience of masculinity”, “For enthusiasm, vigour and pleasure”, “Must use High-power musli oil for extra strength- Unique experience of masculinity”, “For enthusiasm, vigour and pleasure”, “Must use High-power musli oil for extra strength” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Balaji Ayurved Sansthan (ArshHar Range of Products):  The advertisement’s claims, “One cure for many problems of Piles”, “Effective in all kinds of Piles,” and the claims read in conjunction with the product name implies cure for all kinds of piles, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dr Lama Modern Health Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Complete treatment of venereal diseases of men and women with full guarantee” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Marmasutram Siddha Vaidhyasala: The advertisement’s claims, “Vaidyashalas' Medicines purified, refined and without any side effects” and “An experience tradition to cure skin diseases like, Leucoderma , etc., as well as from Piles, Fistula, uterus diseases to Cancer” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Ayurveda Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Ayurveda Clinic - Increase Sex: Time up to 30 minutes”, “longer holdback time”, “Increases length/thickness of penis. Treatment of discharge, diabetes, loose organ, serpentine organ, thinness,” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Meghdoot Gramudyog (Meghdoot Madhu Shoonya Churan): The advertisement’s claims, “Control Sugar Easily”, “Stay Healthy Live Long”,  “Madhus Soonya Power - Helps control blood sugar level, Good for heart problems” and the product name implies cure of diabetes, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Khushi Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (Khushi Ayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “After many years of intensive research Khushi Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. has discovered such medicine which brings sweetness in couple’s life by its use. In this modern era immediately order to make your married life successful and better” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Thus, it  is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Deep Health Care Products (Vigora-M Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Vigora-M - Stamina & Vigour Enhancer” and “An effective herbal remedy for: Premature Ejaculation, Lack of libido, Erectile Dysfunction, Low Sperm count and Sexual Weakness” and the visual in the advertisement & packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Sanjivani Piles Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Treatment facility of Piles without operation and with a single injection is available” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Oorja Ayurvedic Clinic Pvt Ltd (Oorja Ayurvedic Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Oorja Ayurvedic Clinic - Sex Problems? Contact without hesitation” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Palas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Zhakkas Tablets): The advertisement’s claim, “Amazing Erectile dysfunction preventive and stimulator” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Chennai Hospitals Info Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “For the one suffering from Jaundice, Hepatitis –B, get instant relief”, “For diabetic patients get rid of medicine taking lifelong through Laparoscopic” and “By stapilier piles modern procedure, without operation get rid of piles disease without any pain within five hours,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Samson Slim Care: The advertisement’s claims, “Samson Slim Care - Ultimate Treatment for Obesity”, “Reduce ten kilograms within 30 days” and the visuals in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for obesity, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Dr Bhagats Obesity Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Evolution in Permanent fat removal by Non-Surgical Lipolysis”, “India's Largest Obesity Hospital” and the before and after visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Roy Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Spend married life with happiness, get new strength, vigour, youth and enthusiasm”, “Disappointed patients do consult”, “Premature Ejaculation, Impotence, nightfall, passing of semen in urine, infertility” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.  These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Ibm Hospital & Trauma Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Don't be upset because of obesity” and the before and after visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading. The claim  is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1. Lodha Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Piles, Fisher, Fistula - Permanent treatment through injection and Laser,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.  

 

  1.  Mallur Flora Pvt. Ltd. (Miracle Drinks): The advertisement’s claims, “Miracle Drinks - For Prevention & Correction of Health Disorders”, “Prevents the cause and cures the incurable. Invented by an IAS officer based on Vedic Literature” and “Herbal Elixir FOR: Liver Cirrhosis,

Acute Renal Failure, Chronic Kidney Diseases, Kidney Stone, Piles and Rheumatoid Arthritis” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Raj Dawakhana: The advertisement’s claim, “Sure Treatment of Length, Thickness, Vigour and extra time” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Raheem Unani Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Excellent Treatment for Lost Sexual desires, Masturbation, Quick Ejaculation, Sexual Dissatisfaction, Male Infertility, etc.”, “Treatment without operation, for removal of stones in Kidneys” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for improvement of sexual capacity. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Yash Mens Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Remove White spots,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Nurture Health Care (Ayurex-Ndx):  The advertisement’s claim, “Ayurex NDX has brought an energy enhancer capsule full of Ayurvedic properties for you which gives you strength which helps you to fulfil all desires of your partner” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Nurture Health Care (Ayurex-S Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Effect From the first day forever”, “Experience of vigour and youthfulness in veins for weakness due to premature ejaculation”, “For Powerful Stamina and Extra Timing” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

 

  1. Noor Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Without operation treatment of Cancer”, “Without operation treatment of Brain Tumour, Bone Tumour, Blood Cancer, Liver tumour, Lungs Tumour, Intestines, Uterus” and “To treat cancer without operation visit Noor Hospital once surely” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Shree Kalyan Ayurvedashram: The advertisement’s claims, “Sex problems. Keep married life happy”, “Lack of sex desires, Thin semen and lack of semen, Premature ejaculation and nightfall, Reduction in erectile, Lack of sperm, weak sperm, Undeveloped organ of male, Lack of stimulation due to weak nerves” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Also the claims, “Attractive, beautiful and shapely body”, “Emerge beauty of body and increase your self-confidence”, “Our Ayurvedic treatment helps to transform your loose, undeveloped & flat breast into beautiful & attractive and improves physical attraction” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for breast enhancement. These claims were all considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Liver & Gastro Care: The advertisement’s claims, “Diabetes can be avoided and weight can be reduced by Endoscopy balloon without any Laparoscopy surgery and any side effects”, “25 Kilograms to 30 Kilograms can be reduced within three months” and “100% surety” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Clean Stone: The advertisement’s claim, “Stones? Guaranteed & Tested successful treatment of stone without laser operation” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Gehm Clinic & Research Center (Gehm Frez Tablets): The advertisement’s claim, “Removes Debilitation in women and increases excitement” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Old Polio Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Successful treatment for white spots through steam therapy” and “White spot is an Auto Immune Disorder. Treatment for this can be done through steam and research therapy, from which spots cures fast and won't come again,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Badshahi Dawakhana: The advertisement’s claim, “Solution of sex problems”, “Successful treatment of weakness of nerves due to masturbation and discharge, masculine weakness, premature ejaculations, impotence, Removes thinness of penis, loose organ, small organ” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Dr A K Jain Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “World Class Treatment: Venereal diseases like: Sexual debility, lack of sex, sexual weakness, Oligospermia, less semen, impotence, premature ejaculation, Small organ / Loose organ and childless couples, masturbation, Borne Disorders, Sex-related disorders, mental disorder, V.D. Problems and any kind of Venereal diseases successful treatment will be given” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the treatment is meant for improvement of sexual capacity. These claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Vibes Healthcare Limited (Vibes): The advertisement’s claims, “Get guaranteed 2 kilograms weight loss” and “Hair re-growth solutions”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also, the visual showing hair regrowth is misleading. 

 

  1. DLC Smile Deaddiction and Rehabilitation Center: The advertisement’s claim, “Get rid of every kind of intoxication like alcohol, bhaang, gaanja, charas, laundanum, ante, injection, medicine etc”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. A Plus Medi Art: The advertisement’s claims, “We have machines based on latest technologies first time in India” and “First time in India combining modern technologies with ancient science Ayurveda”, were inadequately substantiated with authentic comparative data versus other similar clinics to prove these claims.

 

  1. Cenozoic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (B Gap Contraceptive Tablets): The advertisement’s claims, “Herbal Contraceptive Tablets”, “Trusted, Effective and Convenient”, “Safe, Easy & Effective way to keep age gap between children” and “One tablet keeps you from getting pregnant for six months”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, clinical data to prove its contraceptive action for the duration of six months and are misleading by gross exaggeration. 

 

  1. Kolors Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. (Kolors Slimming and Beauty): The advertisement’s claims, “Kolors laser electrolysis gives 100 per cent guaranteed removal of unwanted hair”, “100 per cent guarantee that unwanted hair does not reappear” and “Kolors treatment gives 100 per cent life time guarantee in writing”, were not substantiated and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  The claim, “100 per cent money back guarantee”, was not substantiated with supporting data how such guarantee is extended to customers and whether any customers have been indeed refunded with the money back, and is misleading.

 

  1. SBS Biotech Unit-II (Dr Ortho Range Of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “World Brand Summit - Most Trusted Brand of Asia 2016”, “World's Greatest Brands 2015-16 IUA”, “Most trusted Brand by Indians” and “Selected No.1 Brand India 2014”, were not substantiated with any support data of the research or any comparative data versus other similar brands in the same category. The claims are not qualified to mention the source and date of research and criteria for assessment for the claims made. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity and omission of the product category.

 

  1. Shrinivas (Gujarat) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd (Shrinivas Tulsi Panchamrit): The advertisement’s claims, “Stay away from various diseases...Live long life!” and “Two drops make your life”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Nila Pharmaceuticals (Arsamukthi): The advertisement’s claim, “Get rid of piles” and name of the product implies cure for piles, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Francis Vaidyans Ayurveda Vaidyasala Pvt. Ltd. (Mehyog): The advertisement’s claims, “Mehyog is an Ayurvedic diabetic medicine for all types of diabetic conditions, regardless of age”, “Not only diabetes is controlled, but its provides 100% cure to diseases related to diabetes like weakness, fatigue, thin body, numbness in hands and legs, joint pain, sleeplessness, blackout, less vision, less sexual power, itching in body, abscess with pain, body odour due to sweat,  black colour seen in feet, etc.,” and “Mehyog should be used daily to prevent diabetes related diseases and normalize diabetes level,” were  considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dr N Sudhir Holistic Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “No need of medicines, instant    relief for diseases – Spondylitis, Paralysis, Asthma, Diabetes and Fits,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shivansh Ayurveda (Shivansh Ayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Adopt Ayurved to increase physical power”, “By using this you can yourself that this medicine is capable to fill pep in body and keep it young” and the visual in the advertisement, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.  These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Ruchi Herbals Pvt Ltd (Long Dive Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “Power Booster for Men” and the visual in the advertisement and the product name, read in conjunction with the claim objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shubham Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Permanent Treatment of Tumour of Breast, Tumour of Uterus without operation” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Naaz India Company (Naaz Churna): The advertisement’s claims, “Quick Relief from the pains of Piles – Haemorrhoids” and “Bleeding stops, fissure gets dried, the puss of piles gets dried and there is no need of operation. You get quick relief as soon as you start consuming the Churna” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. S D Industries (Zosh Ayurvedic Oil and Capsules): The advertisement’s claims, “Experience complete pleasure of married life”, “Power booster for men” and the visual on the packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. These claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Deevya Ayurveda and Panchkarma Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Through Ayurved and Panchakarma, treatment for leucorrhoea and infertility is possible” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Osho Medicare: The advertisement’s claims, “100% Result on Kidney Failure” and “Kidney shrinkage can be made normal” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. German Homeo Gastro Liver Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Breast tumour, lump tumour of uterus, uterine, fibroid, ovarian cyst and all kind of menstrual diseases and chronic fever, for all these diseases successful treatment without operation,”  were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Maa Homeo Chikitsha Kendra: The advertisement’s claims, “Easy and Successful Treatment of Diseases like: Mental disease, migraine, headache, Stones (Gallbladder and kidney), Liver diseases, Woman diseases, tumour of breast, ovary, uterus, Chronic renal failure, Spondylitis, Male diseases and Paralysis,”  were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Astha Skin Care Pvt. Ltd. (Astha Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “White Spot”, “Successful treatment for all kind of skin diseases through herbal and homoeopathic medicine” and the before and after visuals in the ad appear to be misleading and were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Health Buffet: The advertisement’s claims, “India’s First Authentic Brenlarge cream” and “Best in Quality, Best in Results with zero side effects,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Arabindo Sch of Perf Eye Sight: The advertisement’s claim, “Without the help of spectacles and medicines and through simple exercise you can improve vision/eye sight problem with the help of Arabindo School for Perfect Eyesight. Also claims to give permanent solution for all eye problems,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shanshah-E-Azam Capsule: The advertisement’s claim, “Shanshah-E-Azam - An Ayurvedic recipe from which you feel wonderful experience of masculine power by regular use. Best medicine for lack of sperm & impotence. It also removes penis dysfunction & lack of sex desire. Get back youthfulness & vigour in any age” and the product packaging, read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. This claim is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Shubham Homeo Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Permanent treatment of Piles, Fistula without operation” and “Permanent treatment is possible even after unsuccessful operation,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Vaishnavi Charitable Trust: The advertisement’s claims, “Vaishnavi Charitable Trust - Successful Treatment for Gallbladder Stone Through herbal medicine without operation for Kidney stones, Urinary bladder stones,”  are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Rana Dispensary: The advertisement’s claims, “Experience the joy of married life, leave hesitation and shyness”, “Consult for all kind of venereal diseases in men and women, Treatment of childless couples” and “”Successful treatment of every kind of  venereal diseases like discharge, masculine weakness, impotence, premature ejaculation and nightfall,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Phyto X-Tra Power (Herbal Land): The advertisement’s claims, “For happy married life with your lovely partner use Phyto X -Tra Power Capsules”, “After using this Phyto X -Tra Power Capsules happy married life with partner”, “Benefits - Increases the sperm count and quality, enhances strong virility, orgasm and encourages lust, helpful for complete feel of a married life and helps to prevent infertility” and the visuals in the advertisement, product name, product packaging and testimonials read in conjunction with the claims objected to implies that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Thus, these claims were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Sarpal Homeohall (Dr. Puneet Sarpal Homeopath): The advertisement’s claim, “Treatment of stone without operation,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. BK Stone & Urology Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “The complete treatment for Haemorrhoids, piles” and “Permanent treatment for piles khuni or badi without operation” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Dr Guptas Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Fill life with vigour” and “Get treatment for infertility, sexual dysfunction, Haemorrhoids, arthritis pain and stay with vigour and enthusiasm,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. Heart & Health Care (Dr Dhillons Clinic): The advertisement’s claims, “Freedom from heart blockage and diabetes”, “Enhance vigour and strength before or after marriage” and “Successful treatment for masculine weakness, premature ejaculation, less sperm, semen disease, and undeveloped organs” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. The Ano-Rectal Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Successful Treatment of Piles, Fistula & Other anus related diseases” and “First time in Uttar Pradesh successful treatment of Piles, Fistula and other diseases of anus by laser method” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Meghdoot Gramudyog (Meghdoot Gram Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Control sugar easily with madhushunya churna Ayurvedic medicines”, “Controls heart debility” and “Product name implies cure from diabetes,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Shree Hari Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Get healthy without operation! Sure treatment is there in Ayurvedic for stones, piles, tumour and heart diseases,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

 

  1. Khandelwal Accupresure Health Care System: The advertisement’s claims, “Oxygen & Blood Circulation Massager, regulates Blood Sugar, relief in knees & arthritis” and “Successful treatment of curable, incurable diseases is available with acupressure, magnet method,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Sardar Ji Skin Cure:  The advertisement’s claims, “Remove white spot with cosmetic colour”, “get rid of White spots with laser” and the before and after visuals in the ad appear to be  misleading and were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Sriji Ayurved Shakti: The advertisement’s claim, “Treatment of incurable diseases through Ayurvedic method: Blood Pressure, Obesity and Arthritis”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Sivaraj Siddha Vaithiyasalai: The advertisement’s claim, “Only treatment which involves curing through real herbal medicines, all problems related to sex for all men, women both married and unmarried and childlessness” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

 

  1. Dr Batras Positive Heath Clinic (Dr Batras Homeopathic Clinic): The advertisement’s claim,Multiple Ailments. One Solution. Cure of White spots”, which implies cure of white spots, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act.

 

  1. RJR Hospitals: The advertisement’s claims, “Natural Treatment of Psoriasis through Herbal Treatment”, “We cure by herbal medicines, primary stage Psoriasis disease is cured in 3 months and age old Psoriasis disease and patients with less immunity is cured within 6 months”, and “Thousands of patients have been cured and living without any diseases”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  The claim, “Patients who have experienced pain of Psoriasis disease will get cured”…… is misleading by gross exaggeration.  

 

 

  1. RJR Hospitals: The advertisement’s claims, “We provide treatment for persistent cold caused due to adverse effects on our respiratory organs like lungs & sinus cavities, frequent sneezing, running nose, growth of polyps, nose blockage, headache, allergy like breathlessness, asthma, sinus, through our herbal juice treatment”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by gross exaggeration. Further the claim, “Once you have taken this treatment, you need not take any medicines for this disease throughout your life and live healthy”, is misleading by exaggeration. As for the claims related to treatment for asthma, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the Drugs and Cosmetic Act (D&C Act).

 

  1. SBL Pvt. Ltd. (Sbl Diaboherb Oral Liquid): The advertisement’s claim, “Keep Blood Sugar in check”,  “The most potent way to combat  - Polydipsia (Excessive Thirst) - Polyuria (Frequent Urination) - Polyphagia (Excessive hunger/Increased Appetite) - Involuntary Weight Loss”, were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading by gross exaggeration.  Also, the claim, “The most potent way to combat”, was not substantiated with supporting comparative data to prove that their product is better than others. In the context of the overall advertisement, it was not agreed upon with the advertiser’s contention that “Keep blood sugar in check” is a consumer awareness message and considered this to be misleading by ambiguity and implication.

 

  1. Speedwell Botanical Private Limited (Perfect Slim): The advertisement’s claim, “Try Perfect Slim-It works”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by gross exaggeration. With reference to the visual showing an obese person, the advertisement is misleading by implication that the product would solve the problem of obesity.

 

  1. H.L. Slimming Point Pvt. Ltd.  (H.L. Slimming Point): The advertisement’s claim, “Now hair fall will stop”, was not substantiated with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Dr. Kartik’s Slimming Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “4D power shaper  The body you want without going a gym”,  “An advanced slimming process from DKS that helps lose inches from Tummy/Thigh/Hips,” and “Customise body shaping,” were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity and gross exaggeration.    

 

  1. Hair Doc Trichology Expert (Hair Doc Trichology Hair Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Stop Hair Loss in winter,” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Nanal Ayurveda Consultancy (Vaidya Nanals Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “Pratiloma-Unwanted Body Hair Management Cream-Gives permanent benefits”, was inadequately substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. There was no clinical evidence to support permanency of hair removal benefit. Further the claim, “More effective than other medicines”, was not substantiated with comparative test reports versus other products providing similar benefits.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

Education

The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 31 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were upheld.

1. Centre for Ambition (Pre B4 Pre- Centre for Ambition and Amar Ujala): The advertisement’s claim, “Top three students will get 100% Scholarship & 50 lakh Scholarships for other students”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as evidence of 100% scholarships and 50 lakh scholarships availed by their students.  Furthermore, it was noted that the advertiser is positioning this claim as a future promise without providing any basis as to how such scholarships would be feasible and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration. 

2. Bhanwar Rathore Design Studio: The advertisement’s claim, “Highest selection record from BRDS as compared to any coaching institute in Gujarat,” was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. 

3. Prakshal Infotect Pvt. Ltd. (Prakshal IT Academy): The advertisement’s claim, “100% Job Guarantee”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, their enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also the claims, “Take admission today only & get offer letter of job of Rs.15,000” and “Join prakshal's any career oriented course & earn from Rs. 1,00,000 to 5,00,000....”, were not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

4. IIT-ian's PACE Education Pvt. Ltd. (IIT-ians PACE): The advertisement’s claim, “The most trusted brand of India since 17 years”, was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar brands in the same category, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration.

  1. Bank Edge: The claims, “Up to three lakhs Per Annum”, and “5000+ Candidates Successfully Placed”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data and are misleading by exaggeration. It was also noted that there is a mismatch in the testimonial claim, the designation mentioned in the advertisement and the offer letter submitted by the advertiser and the advertisement projects all these different designations within the scope of a “banker” which is incorrect. Thus, the testimonial in the advertisement is also misleading by ambiguity and implications.

 

  1. Bennett Coleman Ltd. & Co. (TimesPro): The advertisement’s claims, “3 assured job interviews after course completion” and “More than 3000 candidates placed already”, were not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, and are misleading by exaggeration.  As the student testimonial was not substantiated, it was considered that the disclaimer “Actual student testimonial, Model in the ad is used for reference only” was misleading by ambiguity. Also the claim, “Salaries up to 3.5 Lakhs p.a.”, was not substantiated with evidence to prove that students were offered the claimed salary packages, and is misleading. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well.

Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are upheld because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/and/or they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:

Karthik Institute of Police Coaching, MSME Development Centre (Process and Product Development Centre), Gurukul Education Centre, Embicon Tech Hub, Dheya IAS, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Education Trust (Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Engineering College), Expert Education and Charitable Foundation, Nikhileshwar Institute of Banking & Management (NIBM PO Maker), The Surajmal Agarwal Laxmidevi Sawarthia Educational Trust (Surajmal Agarwal College of Paramedical and Health Sciences), Delpiero School of Management (DSM), Precept Studio Design, Media3 International Pvt. Ltd., Montura Institute of Visual Effect, Aptech Limited (Arena Animation Academy), Ratnam Coaching Centre, R.R. Polytechnic, Matsya IAS Academy, Shyam Institute, Anupam Career & Research Institute, Eyecon Design Pvt. Ltd. (Eyecon Animation Academy), Subhas Bose Institute of Hotel Management, Laxmi Film Laboratory & Studio Pvt. Ltd. (Laxmi Film & TV Acting Academy), Engineer’s Circle, Wave Global Educational Services Pvt Ltd (WAVE) and Sri Rajiv Gandhi Polytechnic College.

 

 

Personal Care:

  1. VLCC Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Cool sculpting): The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of stubborn fat”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading. Also the claim, “Can see difference in just one sitting”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence, and is misleading as the visible difference with CoolSculpting® technology requires multiple sittings along with other restrictions to be followed. Further for the claim, “The most innovative research by VLCC in the area of Body Contouring”, the CCC noted the Advertiser’s response that the Marathi version of the advertisement erroneously claimed “research by VLCC”.

 

  1. The Himalaya Drug Company (Himalaya Tan Removal Orange Peel off Mask): The advertisement’s claim “Removes tan very easily (visual indicates in 15 minutes)” was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. It was noted that the tan removal benefit of the product was not substantiated with either single use or multiple uses of the product.  The visual showing the model removing the peel off mask to reveal fairer skin when seen in conjunction with the visual of a clock indicating 15 minutes time accompanied with the voice over stating tan removal benefit, is likely to mislead consumers regarding the product’s speed of action. 

 

  1. Ronak Group of Companies (L’ACTION Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “L’ACTION First time in India from French molecules”, was not substantiated as the ingredients quoted are common cosmetic ingredients. Also the claim, “Immediately helpful in stopping hair fall”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy.  Further, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. 

 

  1. Leeford Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Meglow Premium Fairness Cream):- The advertisement’s claim, (in Hindi) as translated into English, “Effective against dark complexion and wrinkle”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading. There is no proof that how this product is more effective than other fairness improvement products in the market. The testimonial claims, “rahat paane ke liye main fairness cream toh kabhi wrinkle kam karne ke liye cream lagati thi”, “par sab fairness cream se na to mujhe koi permanent nikhar mila aur … in cream se meri twacha aur bhi dry aur dull ho gayi thi”, unfairly denigrated entire class/category of fairness creams in particular, and are misleading by exaggeration. 

 

  1. Emami Limited (Zandu Vigorex): The advertisement’s claims, “Recommended by Doctors” and “Recommended by Ayurvedic Experts” is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration as it was noted that the advertiser submitted a certificate from one Ayurvedic practitioner and the CCC did not consider this information to be representative nor adequate to make a generic claim of product recommendation. Further in absence of details regarding the study design and questionnaires used in this market survey, the claim “98% Satisfied Customers” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity. Also, while the claim “Boost Stamina & Energy”, was justified based on attributes of the ingredients, it was inadequately substantiated with any clinical studies specific to this product composition, and is misleading.

 

  1. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Ponds Men Energy Charge Icy Gel Face Wash): The advertisement’s claim, “say no to sun dullness”, was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication that the face wash product will remove sun tan. 

 

  1. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Ponds Age Miracle Firm & Lift): While the product demonstrates efficacy in reducing fine lines and wrinkles and potentially appearance of skin as per data submitted, the claims pertaining to age related changes in the facial contour / neckline / jawline i.e., “Ten years younger with Pond's Age Miracle Firm and Lift”, “Firms and lifts neckline and jawline”, “Firm and lift your Y-Contour. Look up to 10 years younger”, “Inside - Instant Lift Complex strengthens skin and lifts the fibres in the jaw and neckline” and “Outside - A firmer, lifted Y-Contour”, were inadequately substantiated. In the context of the visual in the advertisement emphasizing the Y contour, the claim of “look up to ten years younger” was considered to be misleading ambiguity and implication.

 

  1. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Neha Herbal Colour Cream): The advertisement emphasizes the product descriptor “Neha Herbal Colour Cream” and claim “Raho natural” whereas the product efficacy is due to a chemical colouring agent. The claim of “herbal colour cream” was not substantiated. While the claim “Dikho natural” pertains to hair looking naturally black, it was concluded that the claims, “raho natural” and “herbal” are misleading by ambiguity and implication. 

 

Upheld as advertisement in violation of guidelines for fairness improvement products

 

  1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Fair and Lovely BB Cream): The advertisement of  Fair and Lovely BB Cream emphasizes the importance of one’s looks for a perfect impression for a job interview and states that the advertised product provides the perfect interview look.  The statement, “isme fairness cream ke saare gun hai”, implies that the user of the product will appear fairer and would be able to succeed at the job interview. In the multi-image progression of the protagonist’s skin tone, the protagonist’s face appears concerned / unhappy in the pre-use state. It was concluded that the advertisement contravened Clauses 1 and 2 of the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising for Skin Lightening or Fairness Improvement Products (“Ad should not portray people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, at a disadvantage of any kind, or inferior, or unsuccessful in any aspect of life particularly in relation to job placement…...”,  “In the pre-usage depiction of product, special care should be taken to ensure that the expression of the model/s in the real and graphical representation should not be negative in a way which is widely seen as unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned.”)

 

Food and Beverages

  1. Shukla Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (Shree Gokulam Products-Dahi): The advertisement’s claim (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “If dahi is made of pure milk then it is only of Shree Gokulam Dairy”, was not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar products in the same category, and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Torneto Foods International Pvt. Ltd. (Macsy Pani Puri Wafers): The advertisement’s claim, “Healthy bhi”, was not substantiated and is misleading.  Also, the visual of a “heart” in the advertisement is misleading by implication. 

 

  1. Ankur Chemfood Pvt. Ltd. (Ankur Salt Range): The advertisement’s claim, “Dr. Salt - May help in Regulation of High Blood Pressure & Promoting Physical Activity", was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity as the advertisement is attributing a therapeutic property to salt of “regulating blood pressure”.

 

  1. Chaman Lal Setia Exports Ltd. (Maharani Diabetic Rice): The advertisement’s claim, “Rice Suitable for Diabetics”, was considered to be misleading in the absence of any mention of serving instructions on the pack and in the advertisement  as rice cannot  be  eaten  by  diabetics  in  excess. High intake of carbohydrates, even though low in GI value, will ultimately increase sugar levels.

 

  1. Blue Brothers (Blue Brother’s Sugar Free Rice): The advertisement’s claims, “Sugar Free Rice”, “Prevents Bad cholesterol”, “Prevents Obesity”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also, it was noted that the product packaging mentions, “hand pound brown rice”, whereas the visual shows "white rice”, which is false and misleading. 

 

  1. Elite Life Style Foods (Maagic Rice): The advertisement’s claims, “Low GI”, “Diabetic Rice” and “This low GI rice helps to manage Obesity, Cholesterol and triglycerides”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical data, and are misleading by exaggeration. 

 

  1. Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar (Export) Ltd. (Brown Aeroplane Basmati Rice): The advertisement’s claims, “Low GI”, “Diabetic Friendly Essential” and “Rich in Minerals”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration.

 

 

  1. KRBL Limited (India Gate Brown Rice): The advertisement’s claim, “Low GI of 8.6”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and implication since the advertiser has not corroborated the low GI value basis recognized in-vivo method.

 

  1. Ravi Kamal Flour Mill (Jiwa Diabetic Care Atta): The advertisement’s claim, “Diabetic Care Atta”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Venkatesh Dal and Flour Mill (Santrupthi Diabetic Atta): The advertisement’s claims, “Diabetic Atta”, “Slow Glycemic action”, and “Conversion of food into glucose is low as compared to rice and wheat.” were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. (Dhara Refined Vegetable Oil): The claim in the advertisement, “Blood pressure se keh do kachodi se mera yarana 28 saal purana hai” – In the context of the advertisement’s statements “pyaar kiya toh darna kya” and “Blood pressure se keh do kachodi se mera yarana 28 saal purana hai”, was considered to be misleading by ambiguity. Also, the advertisement’s claim, “Blood pressure se keh do kachodi se mera yarana 28 saal purana hai”, was inadequately substantiated and is encouraging excessive consumption of fried food implying no impact on blood pressure which may not be advisable from health point of view. Further the claim, “Heart friendly,” was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading. Also the claims, “Low absorption of oil,” and “Vitamin A and D2,” were inadequately substantiated, and are misleading.

 

  1. G L Foods (G L Foods Range of Product): The advertisement’s claims, “Now it’s easy to quit tobacco.........,”and “Herbal Gotkha which is made by pure herbs”, were not substantiated, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also the claim, “World's First Product”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data versus other similar products in the same category, and is misleading.

 

  1. Dreamcann Foods Private Limited (Whole Foods India) Whole Foods Special Glycaemic Atta: The advertisement’s claims, “Glycaemic Index 55” and “Special Glycaemic Atta” were not substantiated and are misleading by ambiguity and implication since the advertiser has not corroborated the GI value basis recognized in-vivo method.

 

  1. N B Group (Meenajee Mawa): The advertisement’s claim, “No. 1 in taste and quality”, was not substantiated with any comparative data versus other similar products in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim, and is misleading. The advertisement of Meenajee Mawa is a surrogate advertisement for a Gutkha product – Meenajee Gutkha. Chapter III.2 (e) of the ASCI Code, states that advertisements “Should not feature personalities from the field of sports and entertainment for products which, by law, require a health warning in their advertising or packaging.” The advertisement features Sharman Joshi – a celebrity from the field of cinema.  The advertisement is misleading by implication and contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and III.6 (b) of the ASCI Code (“Where there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted or prohibited by law or by this Code.”). Also, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code (“Where the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted.”)

 

  1. AM P Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. (AM P Pan Products Pan Masala Range): The print advertisement, and the products (Supari packs) shown in the advertisement, are misleading by omission of a statutory cautionary message/warning via supers that “Chewing of Supari may be  injurious to health.  Not for minors”.

 

  1. Organic India Pvt. Ltd. (Organic Green Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Organic India for your well-being Joint Pain Relief”,  “Lemon Ginger Tea (Tulsi, Lemon and Ginger) - improves immunity”,  “Turmeric Formula - Helps prevent inflammatory condition -  Supports healthy bones, joints and overall skeletal system”,  “Flexibility  - Heals joint pain - Improves joint mobility - Support join repair”,  “Osteoseal - Facilitates faster joint repair - Helping faster bone formation - Rich supply of calcium, phosphorus, amino acids, vitamins and sugar”, were inadequately substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also the claim, “For superior efficacy and safety, Organic India uses Predominantly Certified Organic Whole Herbs”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading.

 

  1. Rootsberry Organics Range of Products (Rootsberry Organics): The advertisement’s claim, “Reduce weight naturally with Rootsberry Organics - slimming soup slimming drinks”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Matsyafed (Chitone Anti-Fat Formula): The advertisement’s claims, “To prevent obesity, use Martsyafed's Chitone” and “Chitone is a safe and effective prevention from Obesity".

 

 

 

Upheld as advertisement in violation of Chapter III of ASCI code:

  1. The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola): The advertisement showing the older brother jokingly pushing the coke bottle against the younger brother’s mouth and the cold drink spilling on his face and eye, shows / encourages a dangerous act which is likely to encourage minors to emulate such act in a manner which could harm or injury.  Also, the visual manifests a disregard for safety and encourages negligence.

 

Others:

  1. Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd. (Urbana): The visual showing the protagonist brushing off the coffee drops from his shirt,  with the voice over saying “No matter what spills just brush it off and watch it disappear”, is misleading by omission of  disclaimer to mention that the anti- spill claim is based on time limit of 20 seconds.

 

  1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL Corporate): The advertisement’s claims (in Hindi) as translated into English, “most affordable tariffs” and “fastest broadband”, were not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar service providers in the same category, and are misleading by exaggeration.

 

  1. Dish TV India Limited (Dish TV): The advertisement’s claims, “Watching TV won’t put strain on your eyes anymore!” and “without putting strain on your kid’s eyes”, were not substantiated with credible published scientific evidence and are misleading by exaggeration.  Any child unable to read a black board needs an urgent ophthalmic evaluation and suggesting HD TV as one of the solutions (“Don’t let your child’s eye become weak. Start with changing your TV connection”) is misleading.

 

  1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel): The advertisement’s claim, “Free Calls Local +STD Saath mein payen Internet Data” was not substantiated, and is misleading. Also the claim, “Fastest 4G Network” was inadequately substantiated. Moreover, the subject matter of comparison was chosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser. There is likelihood of the consumer being misled as a result of the comparison.

 

  1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel International Roaming Pack): The advertisement’s claim offer, “Enjoy unlimited free incoming in the USA with Airtel’s International roaming packs”, is misleading by omission to mention that the offer is subject to subscription of international roaming pack.

 

  1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Airtel 4G Data): The advertisement’s claims, “With Free 4G data for all of 2017, the web is yours to explore”,  “Surf to your heart’s content with Free 4G data”,  “With Free 4G data for all of 2017, the internet is yours- anytime, anywhere”,  “Take the web everywhere with Free 4G data”, “Take your Internet experience to the next level with Free 4G data for all of 2017”, “Take your Internet experience to the next level with Free 4G data for all of 2017”, “Make your phone one- stop shop with Free 4G data.” and “Share your joys with the world with Free 4G data for all of 2017”, are misleading by omission and implication as this offer is subject to a customer subscribing to a pack.  

 

  1. R.D. RETAILS (Flipkart) (Lois Caron LCS- 4162): The advertisement claiming the product features as “Watch Movement: Quartz”, is false and misleading as the product model delivered to the complainant did not match with the visual displayed and did not have the “Quartz” reference.

 

  1. Zee News Limited (Zee Business): The advertisement’s claim, “No.1, business news channel”, was not substantiated and is in violation of BARC Guidelines. BARC specifies that for making a leadership claim, the channel must present comparative data for ‘4 consecutive clock hours and 4 consecutive weeks’: This stipulation is clearly not met by both the executions. While the source of data is clearly stated, the usage guidelines are not met. Also, the advertisements are framed so as to abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience or knowledge.

 

  1. Times Network (ET Now): The TV channel claims of having a higher comparative audience/viewership. This claim did not meet the BARC standard for ‘Single Event’. Further, the manner of communicating the competitive comparison between ET Now and CNBC TV18 violates BARC guidelines and constitutes a misleading assertion. While the geographic and demographic conditions for ‘Single Event’ were met, the critical stipulation about increased ratings during the day part was not met. The advertisement fails to comply with BARC Guidelines both per se and in the manner of comparing ET Now with its competitors. Also for the e-mailer the competitive comparison: The basis of comparison shares based on Impressions ‘000 is permissible. However, the comparison of shares with other channels, “ET Now 46%, CNBC TV18 43%” and so on is not compliant with BARC Guidelines.  Graphical comparison: This is not permitted under the BARC guidelines.    

 

  1. Royaloak India (Retro office table): The advertisement’s claim, “Retro office table Rs 9,990”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the advertised product being available for sale and evidence of genuine customers who have availed of this offer, and is misleading by omission of appropriate disclaimers clarifying the offer.

 

  1. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd (Times of India): The advertisement’s claims, “Delhi’s most preferred newspaper” and “Reports exclusive stories like no one else”, were not substantiated with verifiable comparative data versus other similar newspapers in the same category.  Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.

 

  1. One MobiKwik Systems Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Free petrol from 6PM- 9PM (Pune only)!” the offer details say, “Get 100% cashback between 6PM – 9PM from 3rd – 9th February 2017!” It was noted that the claim of “Free” is contradictory to the conditions stated,  and is also misleading by ambiguity as it is subject to terms and conditions that 100% cashback is limited to only Rs.100/-.

 

  1. Idea Cellular Ltd. (Idea 4G): The advertisement’s claim, “Idea Cellular is available in over 4 lakh towns and villages across India,” is misleading by ambiguity and implication that Idea 4G services are available in most parts of rural and urban India.

 

  1. Aerobok Shoes Pvt Ltd (Aqualite): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s most trusted brand - Consumer Validated 201,” “Asia's most promising brand,” “World's greatest brand Asia & Gcc,” and “India's selected No.1 brand - India 2016,” were not substantiated with details, references of the awards received such as the year, source and category.  Also, the claims are misleading by omission of disclaimers to qualify the claims.   

 

  1. Jasper Infotech P. Ltd. - Snapdeal (Samsung J2 Pro): The advertisement’s claim in the print advertisement of Samsung J2 Pro having “Quad-core snapdragon 821 processoris false and misleading, though the Advertiser (Snapdeal) states that there was an inadvertent error made in the print advertisement.  However there was no error in product description of the said product on the online platform.

 

  1. Jasper Infotech P. Ltd. (Snapdeal): The price claim of “Rs 199 less Discount 85% off”, is false and misleading.  

 

  1. Amazon.com (Micromax 32T7260 HDI LED TV): The advertisement’s  claim, “You can also watch your favourite content by connecting your TV to smartphone, using MHL (Mobile Hi-Defination link) and Bluetooth technology”, is false and misleading as the product model delivered to the complainant did not have the features as claimed in the advertisement.

 

  1. Nyayvijay Jyotish Vidhyatejak: The advertisement’s claim, “100% positive result guaranteed”, is not substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com

Tags: ASCI
Post a Comment