ASCI upheld complaints against 232 advertisements in September 2017

In September 2017, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against 232 out of 305 advertisements. Out of 232 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 62 belonged to the Healthcare category, 151 to the Education category, followed bysevenin the Food & Beverages category, fourin the Personal Care category, and eight advertisements from other categories.

Direct complaints
ASCI processed complaints against the following advertisements from the general public, industry as well as from the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements (GAMA) Portal. Out of 92 advertisements, complaints against 28 advertisements were upheld.Of these 13 advertisements against Healthcare, two belonged to the Education category, onebelonged to the Personal category, four belonged to Food & Beverage category and eightbelonged to the ‘others’ category.

Healthcare:
The CCC found the following claims of 13 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 Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
1.    Jolly Healthcare (Jolly Fat Go Slimming Powder): The advertisement’s claims, “Control your increasing weight” and “Now you'll always be slim smart and fit, with delicious remedies” were not substantiated with the details of the product, its mechanism of action and evidence of product efficacy for the powder, capsule and oil being advertised and are misleading by gross exaggeration.

2.    Shreejee Honey (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Shreeji Ashtamrut): The advertisement claims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “product is liquid base useful in more than 500 diseases”, claims implying that the product is “useful in  Vaat, Pitt, Cold, Cough, Gas, Acidity, Monthly Cycle Pain, Vomiting, Kaf, Nautia, Constipation, Blood Pressure, Breathing Problems, Obesity, Allergy, Blood Purification, Sexual Stamina Improver” and “Special product for controlling diabetes is also available”, were not substantiated with any technical data, scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading. Also the claim, “The product is based on eight main ingredients Ginger (Adrak), Amla, Tulsi, Ardusi, Phudina, Lemon, Honey, and Sugar”, was not substantiated with supporting data showing presence of these ingredients in the product, and is misleading.

3.    Truweight Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (Truweight):The advertisement claim, “See Results in ten days or your money back” appearing with the headline “Kickstart your weight loss today”, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded the fees, and is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Further the claim, “Get your first ten days free”, when read in conjunction with the claim  “Get ten day Detox worth Rs.3000 free with weight loss programs”, is seen as being contradictory and misleading by ambiguity and implication, as the offer is actually not free but subject to the customer buying the package.

4.    Dr. Basu’s Eye Hospital’s (Isotine Eye Drops): The advertisement’s claims, “New search in field of Ayurvedic-without operation sure shot treatment of (immature) Cataract with Isotine Eye Drop without operation sure shot treatment of (immature) Cataract, Glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, Retinitis Pigmentation, Colour blindness and other diseases with Isotine Eye Drops” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMRAct and the D&C Rules.

5.    Vancor Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Vacurect): The advertisement’s claims, “Vacurect giving men more power. Let the romance grow even if you grow older. Bring the lost romance back to your life. Recharge your passion and satisfy her every desire. With vacurect meet a new, romantic you that you never knew.  Helpful for senior citizens, men with diabetes, prostrate problems etc. Easy to use and no side effects.  No prescription required.  100 per cent safe and clinically tested” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation the D&C Rules.

6.    Merck Limited (Polybion): The advertisement’s claims, “It is time to say goodbye to tiredness and fatigue”, “Enhance your life by rejuvenating yourself” and “High on energy, high on life”, are misleading by ambiguity and omission as they do not talk of deficiency state of an individual who would consume this Vitamin supplement. Also, the disclaimer in the advertisement was difficult to locate and was not prominent. It was considered that the information provided therein to be vague and generic and hence not acceptable as an appropriate disclaimer.

7.    Dr. Patels Homeocare (Fertility Clinic): The advertisement’sclaims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “Having a child through German Technology”, “No IVF/IUI” and “Back Pain, Tonsils, Adenoid, Hemorrhoids, Prostate, Stone can be treated without operation”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.  

8.    Pratiraj Herbal Pharmacy (Amrit Navjeevan Hair Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Freedom from baldness and hair fall” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C rules.

9.    Deaf cure centre (Hearing Treatment): The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of all types of deafness without any operation, machine and cochlear implantation successfully at deaf cure centre”, “Patient can start hearing from the first hour of treatment”, “One can avoid the cost of lakhs of rupees for cochlear implantation and can build his/her future by taking treatment to improve hearing capacity”, “Cure your deafness and improve your hearing loss”, “Deafness caused due to birth, age, medicinal side-effect, hole in eardrum can be cured accurately”, “This treatment is also effective for deaf and dumb”, “Deafness due to any accident will also be cured by this treatment” and “You can see the audio video of healed patients at centre or on you tube and you can search as Praveen Surana Deaf Cure centre on google/yahoo/social media and contact” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

10.    Vinayaka Hospital: The advertisement’s claim (in Hindi) “Laser hai toh Durbine kyon”, (If Laser is available then why Durbin (Endoscopy)) was false and misleading by ambiguity and implication.

11.    Lotus Slimming Centre (Figure First): The advertisement’s claims, “28 days, 20 sessions loss up to 20 inches”, “No side effects, No pain, we are using DIODE Laser”, and “Reduce weight up to six kilograms in one month”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data,  and are misleading by exaggeration.

12.    Agro Global Resources P. Ltd. (WaggaWagga Diabetes care oil): The advertisement’s claims on packaging, “Diabetes Care”, “Helps control blood sugar”, and the TVC claims, “Ab Diabetes se kya darna sugar control karna hai toh oil badal kar dekho”, “Diabetes Care”, and “The Australian that helps control blood sugar”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims refer to a serious disease, namely diabetes and its biomarker, namely blood sugar and insulin level. Also the claim “Ab Diabetes se kya darna sugar control karna hai toh oil badal kar dekho”,  imply that Wagga Wagga oil has therapeutic properties and these may influence the diabetic patients / consumers to believe that by consuming the advertised product, one can overcome the problem of diabetic complications. It was further observed that the claims, “Use oil without worrying about sugar levels”, recommended for all diabetic patients, and visual implying that one can eat food such as “tikki” without restrictions (“…Soch mat Kuljeet….”) is a serious claim and in absence of any caution or warning could misguide the diabetic patient since Oil when taken in excess is also harmful, especially to Diabetics. Further, since the advertiser has not presented a comparative study report of their Canola oil vs oils available in the market, the claims were inadequately substantiated. Also, as the disclaimers in the TVC are not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi) they contraveneASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers.

13.    Chemical Resources (Fenfuro): The advertisement’s claims, “Fenfuro supports healthy glucose levels”, “Clinically evaluated” and “Proven safe and effective”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence for product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. Also the claims, “Published in well-known journals (Pubmed, FASEB, IJMS, WJPR)”, “Supported by six international patents: • Europe: A Novel Anti- Diabetic Furostanolic-Saponins Rich (FSR) Fraction FromFengureek seeds. • USA: A Novel process for the extraction of Furostanolic-Saponins From Fengureek seeds. • Africa: A Novel Anti- Diabetic Furostanolic-Saponins Rich (FSR) Fraction From Fengureek seeds. • China: A Novel Anti- Diabetic Furostanolic-Saponins Rich (FSR) Fraction From Fengureek seeds”, and “Published in well-known journals (Pubmed, FASEB,IJMS,WJPR)”,  were not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by ambiguity regarding the aspect of patent (whether it is a novel ingredient or only a novel process). The claim implying therapeutic benefits, but the advertisement mentioning “Not for medicinal use”, is misleading by ambiguity.

Education:
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by two different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.
1.    Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (Times Pro): The advertisement’s claim, “90 per cent  + Placement Record”, was not substantiated and the claim is misleading by omission and exaggeration. 

2.    National Institute of Computer Education (N.I.C.E Institute): The advertisement’sclaim, “100 per cent  Job Guarantee”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, or any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration.    

Food and Beverages:
1.    N.K Proteins Pvt. Ltd. (Tirupati Cooking Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Tirupati Oil is India’s #1 cottonseed oil”, was substantiated.  However, the claim was misleading by omission as it is not qualified to mention the source and date of research and that this is applicable for consumer packs market.

2.    G. D. Foods MFG. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Tops Classic No Onion No Garlic Sauce): The advertisement’s claims, "Health Secrets of Classic NONG Sauce: It is a rich source of vitamin A that helps in keeping your eyes healthy, It can help in reducing the risk of prostate cancer, It is low in fat, thus good for your health”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.  

3.    Sresta    Natural Bio products Pvt. Ltd. (24 Mantra Whole Wheat Atta): The advertisement’sclaims, “we make sure world’s healthiest atta goes into her rotis”, “Sresta works with 45,000 passionate farmers who produced the most nutritious whole wheat in the most productive lands of Rajasthan” and “All so that we can provide mom the best atta her best rotis truly deserve”, were inadequately substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. Further the claim, “If that wasn’t enough our team of field experts ensure the organic integrity of the farmer’s produce with over one million farm visits every year”, was considered to be misleading.  

4.    G. D. Foods MFG.(India) Pvt. Ltd. (Tops Soya Sauce): The advertisement’s claims, "Health Secrets of Soya Sauce: Its antimicrobial properties help in protecting the body against certain bacteria.  It is low in fat content and is a very good source of Vitamin C, iron and manganese.  It is a rich source of sodium that helps in basic bodily functions”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.  

Personal Care:
1.    Dabur India Limited – Dabur Odomos: The advertisement’s claim, claim “yani machoro se best protection” & “isliyena machine se, na coil se, best protection sirf Dabur Odomos se”, "sirf Dabur Odomos deta hai Dengue failane wale macchron se 99.9 per cent suraksha" were not substantiated. It was noted that while the advertiser has suspended the TVC with these objected claims, the web-site advertisement continues to have the claim “To find a product that gives BEST protection against mosquitoes…”.Further it was observed that while the TVC is in the context of protection being provided for the first 30 minutes, the claim continues to exist in the Facebook communication / other digital platforms. Furthermore, the the claim on the website, “In the fight against Dengue, India can now be 99.9 per cent  safe” was considered to be misleading by ambiguity, omission and exaggeration.

Others:
1.    A-One gold TMT bars: It was noted that the characters shown in the advertisement do not make any attempt to follow the precautions required to be taken in case of an earthquake. Thus, it was concluded that the advertisement while attempting to portray strength of their product, manifests a disregard for safety.

2.    Volkswagen Group Sales India P. Ltd. (Volkswagen): The advertisement claims of low EMI subject to terms and conditions of the offer are acceptable, but the advertiser has not substantiated the basis with calculations for claiming low EMI of Rs 7999 for Polo version, and Rs11999 for Vento version in the advertisement, nor have they given any evidence of such low EMI being availed by any of their customers. Furthermore, the advertisement is misleading by omission of the details regarding the number of months for the EMI payment and the source / web-site details where a customer could look up the EMI calculations.

3.    Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (Johnson's Baby Laundry Detergent): The advertisement’sclaim, “Best Cleaning” was inadequately substantiated with comparative data against the competition either in detergent for babycare or in the general detergents category, and is misleading by implication that the Product is superior to all competing products.  

4.    Brainbees Solutions Private Limited (Firstcry.com): The advertisement depicting ‘a small girl falling off from the stack of boxes’, ‘a boy slipping off thesofa’and ‘a girl sliding down backwards through the edge of the staircase’, show / encourage  dangerous acts which are likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts in a manner which could harm or injury. The visuals manifest a disregard for safety and encourage negligence.

5.    Ambuja Cements Ltd. (Ambuja Plus Cool Walls): The advertisement’sclaims (in Gujarati) as translated into English, “Now your city will remain five degrees cooler during summers”, “Presenting strong walls made with heat barrier technology”, and “Heat resistance concrete blocks”, were not substantiated with supporting technical data, and are misleading by exaggeration.

6.    Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala (Kerala Tourism): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s Best Family Destination Lonely Planet”, was false and misleading by omission of the reference to the year of the award.

7.    Cheil India P. Ltd. (Samsung French Door Refrigerator):It was concluded that the website showing the visual of two step foldable shelf of the refrigerator with the claims, “The Two Step Foldable Shelf slides in and out and can be folded up to create more room for larger bottles and tall or bulky containers.”, is false for the model RF60J9090SL as the web-site address header has a clear mention of this model which in reality does not have this feature. It was also disagreed upon with the advertiser’s contention about the Disclaimers in the advertisement, “Key feature may different from Key Spec.  Images shown here are for representational purpose only, actual may vary”, since the product model advertised should match with the actual model being sold. Visuals enticing consumers for purchase need to be truthful. The visual in the present case is misleading.   

8.    Milagrow Business & Knowledge Solutions (Milagrow Robots): The advertisement’s claims, “India’s Fastest Floor Robot” and “India’s Quietest Floor Robot”, were not substantiated with a technical test report comparing the advertised product with other brands in India.

Suo Moto action
The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Moto surveillance of print and TV media via National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 213advertisements, total of 204 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 49advertisements against Healthcare, 149 belonged to the Education category, 3 belonged to the Personal category and 3 belonged to Food & Beverage category.

Healthcare:
The CCC found the following claims of 49 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 Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (D&C Rules) and Chapter I.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
1.    Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Nutrislim plus Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “For easy slimming Nutrislim plus Powder and Capsule is the most effective ayurvedic method” was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. Further the claim, “Approved by Department of Ayush”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading by ambiguity and implication that Ministry of AYUSH has approved the product efficacy.

2.    Ayurwin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Nutrigain plus Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “Skinny to Fit Body”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

3.    Naturoveda Health World: The advertisement’s claim, "India's most Trustworthy and Confident healthcare service providing organization in the field of natural medicine”, was not substantiated, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

4.    Guduchi The Ayurvedism (Obesidat): The advertisement’s claim, “Obesidat - A natural way to be slim which gives permanent solution and we found The Obesidat” and the product name implies cure for obesity and claims in the advertisement make a reference to obesity and are misleading by implication. The advertisement was also considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

5.    Gloss Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Vaeg Capsules and Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “The use of Vaeg gives long lasting vigour” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claim objected to imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure.Thus, the advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

6.    Raman Ayurvedic Cancer Society: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of Cancer and Kidney,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

7.    Aas Piles Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Get rid of piles from the roots without operation and bed rest”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

8.    G. M. Pharmacy (Sadabahar Sugar Free): The advertisement’s claims, “The powder that destroys diabetes, Freedom from Sugar” and “Sadabahar Powder generates insulin in complete amount and kills diabetes,” are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

9.    Dr Azad Herbal Centre: The advertisemen’s claim, “Get rid of piles from the roots forever”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

10.    Stimox Capsule: The advertisement’s claims, “For Happy Marital Life Stimox Capsule” and “Stimox Stimulated Excitement”, maintenance or improvement of the capacity of the human being for sexual pleasureare considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

11.    Dr N Dharmarajan Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “Irregular Menstruation Period, Fibroid, Polycystic, Ovary Syndrome, Fallopian Tube Block, these diseases can get cured” and “Thousands of patients live happily after being cured without surgery, Fertility Assured”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

12.    Shree Baidyanath Ayur Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (Baidyanath Vita Ex Gold Plus):The advertisement’s claims, “Making Life More Exciting”, “Now for both Men and Women” and the visual in the advertisement and product packaging imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. The advertisement is, thus, considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

13.    Gaharwar Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd. (P.V. Tone Oil and Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Brings hope and enthusiasm in Love”, “Amazing Formula which removes out physical weakness” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to implythat the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement, The advertisement is, thus, considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act  andthe D&C Rules.

14.    Dr. Taj: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of venereal disease”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act. 

15.    Janta Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Avoid operation and give successful treatment of piles through injection” and “Patients of fistula get successful treatment through Kshar Sutra”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

16.    Jivak Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Treatment of Cancer is possible without Operation, Radiation and Chemotherapy through Ayurvedic Method” and “Patients suffering from piles, kidney related diseases can get complete ayurvedic solution”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

17.    Vaidyaratnam P.S. Variers Kottak kal Arya Vaidyasala: The advertisement’s claim, “Effective treatment of diseases like Diabetes, Jaundice, Paralysis, Spondylitis, Asthma, Arthritis etc...”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

18.    Care and Cure Herbals (Shots Capsules and Gel):The advertisement’s claim, “The beautiful moments of love will always be remembered” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claim objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement.The advertisement is, thus,considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

19.    Bengali Dawakhana:  The advertisement’s claims, “Save yourself from operation, successful treatment of Piles” and “Patients suffering from Fistula and Fissure get successful treatment”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

20.    Birla Healthcare Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (Birla Ayurveda): The advertisement’s claim, “Get freedom from disorders like Paralysis, Spondylitis, Obesity, Infertility,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

21.    Sri Balaji Ayurvedic Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Removal of Kidney Stones without operation”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

22.    Kunnath Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Musli Power Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Musli Power Premium (For Senior Citizen) - to be useful to increase strength and stamina”, “Musli Power Eve (For Women) - to be useful to increase strength, stamina and improve general well-being and vitality” and the visual on the product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected imply that the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement. The advertisement is, thus, considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

23.    Shivansh Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Increase Physical Strength”, “Ayurvedic medicine which brings melowness in husband and wife relationship” and the visual in the advertisement when read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement.The advertisement is, thus,considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

24.    Manoj Ayurveda Hospital and Research Center:The advertisement’s claim, “Perfect ayurvedic solution to Piles, Fissure, Fistula with no need of operation”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules. 

25.    Chaturbhuj Pharmaceutic al Company (Right Sugar Tablet): The advertisement’s claims, “diabetes control is possible” and “sugar management medicine”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

26.    Herbsayurmed Pharmaceuticals (Ajmod Ras and Ajmod Extract Dried): The advertisement’s claim, “easy and natural solution for sugar control and obesity”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules. 

27.    Siddhar Diabetic Foundation: The advertisement’s claim, “The diseases which come due to diabetes like unhealed ulcers, less marital life interest all will be cured”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules. 

28.    Star Ayurveda (Star Homeopathy): The advertisement’s claim, “Liver related problems recognised foremost can be cured easily”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules. 

29.    Homeocare International Pvt. Ltd.:The advertisement’s claim, “Asthma can be completely cured”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules. 

30.    Sanjivani Ayurvedic:The advertisement’s claim, “Ayurvedic Remedy, Guaranteed Treatment- Obesity, Paralysis, Piles, Stones, Infertility and Venereal Diseases,” is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules. 

31.    Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule): The advertisement claims, “Use of Stay-On will give you a feeling of youthfulness, immunity power, pep, excitement, strength and vigour physically and mentally” with the tagline translated as, “My heart goes crazy for you”. Also the visual in the advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Further the advertisement provides a link to websitewhich refers to Stay-On Capsules as a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual well-being and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions.These claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.  

32.    Shree Maruti Herbal (Stay-On Power Capsule):The advertisement claims, “The magic of intimacy remains constant.”,“You will get a feeling of youthfulness, immunity power, pep, excitement, strength and vigour physically and mentally” and the visual in the advertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Also, the advertisement provides link to website which refers to Stay-On Capsules are a miracle of Ayurveda, and while these are very effective for ensuring sexual well-being and letting you get over sexual dysfunctions,These claimsare considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

33.    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win Capsule): The advertisement claims, “Increases vigour, strength and stamina” and the visual in theadvertisement and product packaging read in conjunction with the claim in the advertisement imply that the product is meant for enhancement of sexual pleasure. Also the advertisement provides a link to website which refers to, “Playwin Capsule works instantly that means – in minutes after consuming, you can start enjoying truly mind blowing sex.” These claims are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

34.    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increases excitement, strength, extra timing and pep.”,“Helpful in preventing premature ejaculation.”, “For powerful stamina” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement.These claimsare considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

35.    Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Play Win plus Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Increases vigour, strength and pep”, “For powerful stamina” and the visual in the advertisement read in conjunction with the claims objected to imply that the product is meant for sexual pleasure enhancement. These claimsare considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

36.    Curles and Curves- Hair Transplantation and Cosmetic Surgery Centre:The advertisementclaims,” A Scientific solution on obesity” and“Permanent solution for obesity”. Also, the claims in the advertisement make a reference to obesity and are misleading by implication, and are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

37.    Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited (Apollo Hospitals): The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of seizures” and“Let us eliminate Epilepsy”, are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules.

38.    Shree Paramhans Skin and Hair Regrowth Centre:The advertisement’s claims, “Get rid of baldness in two hours”, “Without Surgery and Medicine”, “Through natural treatment and yoga get back your lost hair” and the before and after visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading, and are considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Rules. 

39.    Shalby Limited (Shalby Hospitals):The advertisement’s claim, “Successful experience of providing treatments to more than 50,000 cancer patients”, is considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Rules.

40.    Elation Hair and Skin Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Bring Back your Hair”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence and is misleading by implication and exaggeration. Also the claim, “FDA approved medicines and protocol only”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence, and is misleading by ambiguity and implication.  

41.    Perfect Point: The advertisement’s claims, “Sculpting you to a perfect figure by perfect point” and “Coolsculpting–Permanent”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration.

42.    Slim-N-Health: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce the increased weight”, “Now there is no need for exercise, medicine and also,no need for operation”,  “Your increased weight will be reduced and not only this but you can also give proper shape to your body”, were  not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data,  and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also, the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading.  

43.    Dr Dev Slimming Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Reduce four kilograms stomach at Rs1500 within 15 days or money back”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence for the assured weight reduction from stomach, and / or with evidence of the customers who were refunded the fee as per the money back guarantee.  The claim is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.  Also, the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading.

44.    Shretej Slimming Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce four to six kilograms weight Loss within 15 days”, “No Medicine”, “No Crash Diet”, “No Side Effect”, “100 percent Result and Guarantee”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data,  and are misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement implies significant weight loss which is also grossly misleading.

45.    Angels Advanced Clinic: The advertisement’sclaims, “Get Rid of all your hair problems through stem cell therapy and get thicker hair”and “Get permanent hair free skin”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and are misleading by exaggeration.  Also, the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment is misleading.  

46.    Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. (Apollo Speciality Hospitals):The advertisement’s claim, “To get permanent freedom from joint pains”, is an absolute claim which was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

47.    VLCC Health Care Pvt. Ltd.: The print advertisement’s claims, “Reduce two kilograms weight in just seven hours. No side effect. No crash diet. No artificial food supplement. No appetite suppressant”, and the TVC claim, “Now lose two kilograms in seven hours only”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data among a statistically significant sample size in a representative population.In addition, the claims are misleading by ambiguity regarding the treatment being over a period of several days and omission of details regarding the treatment modality. Further the claims, “Reduce two kilograms weight in just seven hours”, and “Now losetwo kilograms in seven hours only”, were misleading by implication that thetwo kilograms weight is lost in seven consecutive hours.

48.    Nurture Health Care (Medora Upchar Paddhati): The advertisement’s claim (in Marathi) as translated in English, “A powerful solution for reducing weight and stomach girth” was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and the claim is misleading by exaggeration. The visual in the advertisement implies a significant weight loss which is also grossly misleading. 

49.    Chennai Hospitals Information Center: The advertisement’s claim, “No.1 Ranking Holder Among All Fertility Centers of Chennai”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data / market survey data of the advertiser and other similar institutes, and the claim is misleading by exaggeration.

Education:
The CCC found following claims in the advertisements by 149 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD.
1.    United Group of Institutions: - The advertisement’s claims, “Ranked No.1 private engineering college in U.P by Jagran Josh” and “Recognised by Forbes India as amongst “25 places to study in India”, were not substantiated with supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

2.    AISECT University:- The advertisement’s claims, “Ranked No.1 private University in central India by careers 360”,  “World education award 2016 (Dubai)”,  “World education award 2015”,  “ASSOCHAM excellence in education award 2014”,  and “NIELIT award 2014 and Shiksha Ratna award 2012”, were not substantiated with supporting data.  The claims are misleading by exaggeration.

3.    Amity Global School: The advertisement’s claim, “CIE is the world's largest provider of international qualifications” is misleading by ambiguity and omission. 

4.    Aviral Classes:  The advertisement’s claim, “Classes that provide the maximum selections from North India”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data, comparison with other similar institutes and is misleading by exaggeration.  

5.    Chandigarh Group of Colleges:  The advertisement’s claim, “CGC Jhanjeri is honoured with prestigious award for Quality in Placements by ABP News” where the advertiser did not provide the details of the process as to how the selection was done i.e. survey methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other similar colleges that were part of the survey and the outcome of the survey.

6.    Dr M.G.R Polytechnic College: The advertisement’s claim, “Immediate Job Opportunity”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data to show the job offers/opportunity provided to each of their students immediately after passing out through their institute. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

7.    Rajasthan Defence Academy:The advertisement’s claim, “947 selections which is highest in India”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration.

8.    Alpha Group Of Institutions (Alpha College Of Engineering):The advertisement’s claim, “Academic year 2016-2017 all students placed”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The advertiser did not declare the total number of students passing out from the placed class in their advertisement. The claim is misleading by omission and exaggeration.

9.    BPJ College of Arts and Science: The advertisement’s claim, “Done Guinness World Records”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading by omission of the reference to the specific record and exaggeration.

10.    IIT Gurukul Pawar Sir - (Pawar PMT Classes):  The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  selection in JEE / NEET”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data and is misleading by exaggeration.

11.    Sky Way School - (Skyway Career Hub): The advertisement’sclaim, “Get Guaranteed jobs”, was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading by implication and exaggeration.

12.    Sant Baba Bhag Singh University: The advertisement’sclaim, “Scholarship available upto 100 per cent”,  was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent  scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.

13.    Swami Vivekanand Subharti University: For the advertisement’s claim, “placement assistance”, the use of 100 per cent is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. The advertisement’sclaim, “Upto 100 per cent Scholarship for Meritorious Students”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent  scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. 

14.    Techno Vision Super -30: The advertisement’s claim, “Get Scholarship 100 per cent”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by exaggeration and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.Also, the claim, “India's best educational Institute”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes in the same category, or with market survey data, or through a third party validation; Hence, the claim was misleading by exaggeration.  

15.    UPES College of Engineering Studies (UPES) – (UPES College of Management & Economics Studies): The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent BBA placements since 2012”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate.  The claim, “First Indian University to be awarded QS Five Stars Global Rating for Employability”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.

16.    Chronicle of Institute Competitive Study: The advertisement’sclaim, “Success Assure or Fees Return*”, was not substantiated with supporting data of their successful students and / or any supporting evidence of the students who were refunded with the fees back.  The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration.

17.    Maharishi Vidya Mandir: The advertisement’s claim, “Group of India's Best Awarded CBSE School”, was false and the claim was misleading by misrepresentation of the certificate received. The claim is not qualified by mentioning the source and the date of the research and is misleading by omission.

18.    BITT RVAIM Educational Pvt Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “Scholarship up to 100 per cent ”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of provisions made by the advertiser to grant the mentioned scholarships. The claim was misleading by ambiguity and omission of the details regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered, and the terms and conditions of the scholarship plan.   

19.    Teerthanker Mahaveer University: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Multi-Disciplinary UP state Private University as per NIRF 2017 ranking”,  was not substantiated with any verifiable  comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, and with a copy of the NIRF ranking data as claimed in the advertisement.   

20.    Maya Devi Educational Foundation (Maya Group of Colleges):     The advertisement’s claim, “Awarded best hotel management college of Uttarakhand”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The claim is not qualified by mentioning the source and the date of the research and is misleading by omission. As for the claim, “100 per cent Placement Assistance”, it was concluded that while the advertiser may be providing placement assistance to their students, the use of 100 per cent numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim.   The use of “100 per cent” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

21.    NIMS University: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Private University of the year 2017”, was not substantiated with supporting data and is misleading by exaggeration.  The claim, “100 per cent Placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration. 

22.    Neelkanth Group of Institutions: The advertisement’s claim, “Asia's Best and Fastest Growing institution by KPMG”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration.  The claims, “No.1 Polytechnic Institute in NCR & Western UP”, and “No.1 Polytechnic Institute in the region”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove these claims. The claims are misleading by exaggeration.   

23.    Indian Institute of Computer & Hospital Management: The advertisement’s claim, “Sure job in abroad”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data and is misleading by gross exaggeration.   

24.    Sharda University: The advertisement’s claim, “Best dental school in North by education leadership awards 2017”, was not substantiated with supporting data.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration.  

25.    Swami Vivekanand University: The advertisement’s claims, “No.1 University in Bundelkhand”, and “No.1 University in Fire Safety Course in India”, were not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or through a third party validation.  The claim, “The most awarded university of MP”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.  The claims are misleading by gross exaggeration.

26.    Shankar IAS Academy: The advertisement’s claim, The best IAS academy in South India since 2004”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other similar institutes, or with market survey data, or through a third party validation from 2004 till 2017.  The claim was misleading by gross exaggeration.  

27.    Aero Institute of Technology: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.  

28.    Akbar Academy of Airline Studies: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.     

29.    Art Forte: The advertisement’s claim, 100 per cent scholarship and its placement in the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity and omission that the scholarship is being referred to is of NAFA and not for their institute.

30.    Atlantis International Academy: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

31.    Capella Maritime: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent success record”, was not substantiated with verifiable claim support data for the current year or previous time periods for which the advertiser was offering their services, and is misleading by exaggeration.   

32.    Central Footwear Training Institute: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assisted”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assisted” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

33.    Cleopatra Beauty Academy: The advertisement’s claim, the use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “job assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

34.    Dheya IAS: The advertisement’s claim, “Most trusted since 2003”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting comparative data over the last 14 years, and is misleading by exaggeration. 

35.    Flying Queen Air Hostess Academy: For the advertisement claim, “job assistance”,the use of 100 per cent  is not relevant for “job assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

36.    GOAL Educational Services Pvt. Ltd (Goal Coaching): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Institute in Result Ratio”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove this claim.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration. Claim, “Upto 100 per cent  scholarship”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent  scholarships availed by any of their students, and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. 

37.    Geetha Shishu Shikshana Sangha (GSSS Institute of Engineering & Technology for Women): The advertisement’s claim of “100 per cent  training” to be objectionable and linking it with “placement assistance” was considered to be misleading. While the advertiser may be offering placement assistance to students, the use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim.   The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. 

38.    IIKM Business School: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

39.    J.R. Media Institute: The advertisement’s claim, “Best Media Institute”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration. The CCC noted that while the advertiser may be offering placement assistance to students, use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim.   The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

40.    Jai Bharath Educational Foundation (Jai Bharath College Of Management And Engineering Technology): The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.   

41.    Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Arts & Science (JNIAS): For the advertisement claim, “placement assistance”,the use of 100 per cent  is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

42.    JD Institute Technology of Fashion: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

43.    Lakshya CA Campus: The advertisement’s claim, “No.1 Chartered Accountancy Institute in India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or any third party validation to prove this claim. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The CCC noted that while the advertiser may be offering placement assistance to students, use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim.   The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.  

44.    Mody University of Science and Technology:- The advertisement’s claim, “Upto 100 per cent  scholarship on tuition tee for top 50 qualifying students”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent  scholarships availed by any of their students, or the evidence of provisions made by the advertiser to grant the mentioned scholarships and was misleading by implication and ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered.

45.    New Science Degree and PG College: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

46.    Oasis Educational Services Pvt. Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim, “Upto 100 per cent  scholarship”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of 100 per cent  scholarships availed by any of their students, provision made by the institute to grant such scholarship and was misleading by ambiguity and omission of information regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered and the criteria used for the same.

47.    Ravis Education System: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  passing guarantee or else fee return”, was not substantiated with supporting data for 100 per cent  passing record of their students and / or any supporting evidence of the students who were refunded with the fees back if they did not pass.  The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration.  

48.    Sri Narayana Educational Institution (Sahodaran Ayyappan Memorial College of Education): The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

49.    Shail Group of Institutions: The advertisement’s claim, “Scholarship up to 100 per cent ”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by omission of the mention that 100 per cent  scholarship covering only tuition fees is applicable for students with >90 per cent  marks and omission of the mention of where the detailed terms and conditions are available for reference  by students. 

50.    Sri Nanesh Samta Vikas Trust: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

51.    Universal College Of Engineering: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

52.    Vijnan Institute of Science and Technology:   For the advertisement claim, “placement assistance”,the use of 100 per cent  is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. Also, the claim - “Scholarship worth Rs 2 crore” – was not substantiated with supporting evidence of scholarships availed by any of their students.  The claim is misleading by ambiguity regarding the amount of scholarship and the total number of scholarships being offered. For the calculations shown in their response, the Advertiser did not provide any independent audit or verification certificate for the same.   

53.    Flywin Academy of Aviation & Vocational Training:-For the advertisement claim, “placement assistance”,the use of 100 per cent  is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

54.    Jetking Infotrain Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “Job Support”. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. Claim, “Join India’s No.1 Digital Skills Institute”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in the same category, or through a third party validation.  The claim was misleading by exaggeration.  

55.    Olive Petals: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

56.    SIMS Technologies: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

57.    SR Group of Institution:  The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Placement assistance”, was inadequately substantiated. The use of 100 per cent  numerical is not relevant for “placement assistance” claim. The use of “100 per cent ” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication. 

58.    Sri Chaitanya Educational Institution (Sri Chaitanya Iit Academy):  The advertisement’s claim, “Above 80,000 doctors & 10, 00,000 engineers produced so far”, was not substantiated and misleading by exaggeration. Also, the claim, “Always No.1”, was not substantiated with year wise verifiable comparative data versus other similar institutes in the same category or any third party validation or research to prove this claim. The claim is misleading by exaggeration.

59.    SSN Degree College: The advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent  Job Placement Training along with degree courses”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration.

60.    T D Institute of Professional Studies & Research Rewa (T D Nursing College): For the advertisement claim, “job assistance”,the use of 100 per cent  is not re