ASCI upholds complaints against 299 advertisements in July 2019

In the month of July 2019, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) investigated complaints against 489 advertisements, of which 151 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers on receipt of communication from the council. The independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI evaluated 338 advertisements, of which complaints against 299 advertisements were upheld. Of these 299 advertisements, 201 belonged to the education sector, 59 belonged to the healthcare sector, nine to personal care, four to the food & beverages sector, and 26 were from the ‘others’ category.

ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising were not adhered by a consumer durable brand. The brand’s advertisement featured two top celebrities acting as a couple endorsing a renowned brand of air conditioners. The advertisement implied extremely rapid cooling performance whereas the claim was considered to be misleading. Moreover, there was no evidence of celebrity due diligence submitted by the advertiser.

In the Food and Beverages category, a popular brand ran a digital campaign that tried to misrepresent a scientific study by distorting the information to mislead gullible consumers. Another complaint was against a prominent airline offering cheap fares as part of an offer; however, all the important details were either missing or buried in the fine print.

Over 200 advertisements belonged to the education sector with advertisers making unsubstantiated claims such as being No. 1, holding awards or providing '100% placement' misleading students and parents. Few educational institutes were observed to downplay their status of being a “Deemed to be University” and presenting it in a misleading manner by overly emphasizing the word “University”.

The healthcare sector also saw a large number of advertisements pertaining to hospitals and clinics claiming best services, winning various awards or being able to cure various conditions ranging from infertility to piles, diabetes, HIV and cancer. A renowned hospital claimed to be the pioneer in overcoming Parkinson’s without providing any substantiation.

Rohit Gupta

Rohit Gupta, Chairman, ASCI, said, These claims may mislead the consumer by communicating that the advertised institute, product or service is recognised, esteemed or evaluated by experts or a large body of experts, whereas this may not be the case. There are also dubious cases where such awards are self-sponsored. Effective November 1, 2019, 'Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements'

Education: - 201 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Eight advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (193 advertisements)

Healthcare: - 59 advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (59 advertisements)

Personal Care: - Nine advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Two advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (seven advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - Four advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Four advertisements)

Others: - 26 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Seven advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (19 advertisements)

Direct Complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 80 advertisements complained against, 23 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 57 advertisements, complaints against 21 advertisements were upheld by the CCC of which eight belonged to the Education sector, four belonged to the Food & Beverages sector, two from the Personal Care sector and seven from the ‘Others’ category. 36 advertisements were not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following three advertisements were misleading by exaggeration and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisements also violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions and Programs.

1. The Globalizers Edutrain Pvt. Ltd: The advertisement’s claim, “1090 of our students scored 7.5+ band in 2018” appearing on Facebook was not substantiated with supporting data such as details of these students who scored 7.5+ band, with their contact details for independent verification, their enrolment forms, and their scorecards, nor any independent audit or third - party verification certificate.

2. CL Educate Ltd. - Career Launcher (CAT 2019 Coaching): The print advertisement’s claims, “6* - 100 percentilers in CAT 2018” and “400*+ IIM calls to Career Launcher, Bhubaneswar and Cuttack students in CAT 2018” were not substantiated. The CCC observed that the data validated via CA certificate was for the number of interview calls received by 42 students; however, the reference to IIM was missing, contrary to what was claimed. The claimed figure of 400+ calls appeared to be unrealistic.

3. Swarrnim Startup & Innovation University: The print advertisements claim “India’s First University for Start Up”, and the Website Ad claim, “Swarrnim Startup & Innovation University”, were not substantiated.  The claims are misleading by ambiguity as UGC has not granted formal approval to run this University and award degrees as the UGC inspection formalities are pending, nor have they stated that this University is first in India for start-ups. For the print advertisement claim related to the course offered for BSc in Agriculture, the CCC referred to the Supreme Court judgment for reference which showed that no private university can offer B.Sc / M.Sc in Agriculture. Based on this observation, the CCC concluded that the advertiser claiming to offer “B.Sc in Agriculture” course is misleading. 

Complaints against advertisements of five educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated AND misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/100% placement assistance OR they claim to be the No.1 and Best in their respective fields.

1. Scholars Academy
2. Aryabhatta Group of College
3. Aptech Limited (Maya Academy of Advance Cinematics MAAC)
4. The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM)
5. Captain Batra Classes

Food and Beverage

1. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (Horlicks Protein Plus): The YouTube Channel video introduces the advertisement communication as “Wondering why you're so tired all the time? Watch how to take the #RiseUpChallenge by Horlicks Protein +”. The video refers to complaints of “chronic tiredness” by participants of the Rise Up challenge, which is not necessarily linked to muscle strength alone. Such tiredness could be due to other health conditions such as loss of muscle mass, deconditioning, nutritional deficiencies, oxygen delivery, anaemia, etc. “Rise Up challenge” is to check ability to move which is linked to many factors mentioned above as well as neurological normalcy, balancing apparatus in the brain etc. Muscle strength is one of the outcome factors of the Rise Up challenge; connecting this as a direct “screening test” for “chronic tiredness” by the advertiser was considered to be incorrect. Hence, “Failing the #RiseUpChallenge means you have poor muscle health” is misleading by exaggeration. The reference quoted in the disclaimer of a scientific paper was considered irrelevant in reference to the problem of “chronic tiredness” and considered to be misleading by ambiguity.  

2. Rasna International Pvt. Ltd. (Rasna Insta EnerG): The television advertisement’s claim, “Jab Challenge Ban Jaaye Tagda, toh Mamuli  Nahi Tagda Energy Drink, Rasna Insta Ener-G”, "Ye de real tagadi Energy, kyunki dusro ke mukable sirf Rasna Insta mei hai Real Fruit Powder, 21 Vitamin, Minerals our Glucose ki tagadi shakti"  were not substantiated. The pack visual indicated that the advertised product has 90 gm of sugar per 100 gm and has only 0.5 gm Glucose, an ingredient known to provide "instant energy". The advertisement creates an impression that Rasna Insta EnerG gives more instant energy than glucose powder or Instant drink as the Boy Cadet rejects these products but gets instantly energised and keeps running for more than 19 rounds after consumption of the advertised product. The claim of instant energy was not substantiated with composition / FSSAI licence / pack artwork or samples, nor evidence of the ingredients present for the real fruit powder claim; also no comparison to show superiority over other generic glucose products was provided. The comparison shown in the advertisement is misleading by exaggeration and implication, and disparages the entire category of all glucose powders and instant drinks. The advertisement also violated the ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers and ASCI Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages.

3. Sethia Sweet Products (Milan Rasgulla): The packaging of the product portrayed a young girl donning sindoor and in a bridal get up. The CCC considered such depiction implying the practice of “Child Marriage” (which is in violation of the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006) to be objectionable.

4. Rathira Ayurveda Private Limited. (100 Day Diabetes Healer): The Company’s website advertisement with the pack shot claims, “100 Days Diabetes Healer” and carries the FSSAI logo. The advertiser did not provide copy of product approval license, product composition details, FSSAI approval for the claims made, and evidence of the ingredients present in the product, nor any data of any study done with the product. The implication of the claim that diabetes can be cured by use of this product, was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration. The testimonials of eight patients who have been benefitted by the product was not substantiated and the CCC also expressed their concern for promotion of this food product with therapeutic and curative claims.

Personal Care

1. Zydus Wellness Ltd (Nycil): The television advertisement’s claim translated from Hindi that features a model posing as a doctor states “Not just any other powder, you need Nycil that kills all germs instantly. Shows results in just three days” was misleading. Furthermore, the advertisement when seen in totality creates an impression that the advertised product is recognized by doctors for its efficacy and is recommended by doctors. In view of the Code of Medical Ethics prohibiting doctors from endorsing any product and in the absence of any market research data indicating that medical professionals in general recommend the advertised product, the TVC was considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication. The TVC / YouTube advertisement may lead to widespread disappointment in their minds. 

2. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd (Durex Condoms): The twitter advertisement’s claim, “Nearly 70% Women In India Don’t Orgasm Every Time During Sex”, was substantiated. However, the claim is based on an independent report and its source and date of research is not mentioned in the Twitter advertisement. The Twitter advertisement contravened Chapter I.2 of the ASCI Code which states that, where advertising claims are expressly stated to be based on or supported by independent research, the source and date should be indicated in the advertisement.

Others

The CCC found that the claims made in the following advertisements were misleading, exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and can lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

1. Havells India Limited (Lloyd AC): The television & YouTube advertisement’s claim “18 degree Celsius in 45 seconds” featuring celebrities Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The visual impact in the advertisement seemed to imply that the room thermometer shows cooling to 18 degrees Celsius in 45 seconds. As per the test report provided, the air temperature of 18-degrees Celsius is reached at the grill, that too, under a given set of ambient indoor and outdoor conditions as well as humidity. The CCC was of the opinion that it is unlikely that the exit air temperature (even at the grill) will be attained in 45 seconds given the variables in a real-life situation such as outside temperature being 35 to 40 degrees as well as initial conditions in the room, its size and characteristics. The advertisement is also in violation of ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. The advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrities did due diligence prior to lending their name to the endorsement, to ensure that all descriptions, claims and comparisons made in the advertisement are capable of substantiation. The advertisement also violated the ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers.

2. Eureka Forbes Ltd: The advertisement’s claim “Instant Infusion” in conjunction with the body text which reads as “Ensures that copper is instantly infused in your drinking water. No more overnight storage in copper vessels” was not adequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertisement’s claims imply that the consumer now does not need to overnight store drinking water in a copper vessel, as the drinking water supplied by its product is comparable to drinking water stored overnight in a copper vessel.  
3. Eureka Forbes Ltd: The Company’s website advertisement claim, “Biotron Cartridge – The cutting edge Biotron Technology de-clusters water molecules, thereby making the water more “bio-available””, was not adequately substantiated. For the first part of the claim, no scientific published evidence of de-clustering of water molecules was provided, nor could the same be found on searching the scientific literature provided. The advertised device is made for the consumption of humans, however the tests submitted to substantiate are conducted on plant/ crop seeds. For the second part of the claim, no evidence of making the water more “bio-available” in humans was provided.
4. TATA SIA Airlines Ltd. (Vistara- the Grand Vistara Monsoon Sale): The print advertisement’s claim, “Fares starting at Rs. 1,299/-” with an asterisk (*) was misleading by ambiguity and omission. The qualifier in the advertisement mentioned that “Fares depend on the route and date of travel. Seats are limited.  Additional terms and conditions apply”.  However, there was no information regarding the number of seats offered under the discount, where the additional terms and conditions were available and the nature of these additional terms and conditions. Furthermore, the advertiser did not provide any details of the sectors and dates on which the advertised fares were available as offered.  The advertisement also violated the ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers.

5. Bhansali Productions T-Series (Malaal): The print advertiser promo of the movie Malaal features the rider (male) and the pillion rider (female) on a two wheeler without helmets. The girl is shown seated very close to the boy on the front seat facing towards him. The CCC concluded that the advertisement portrays violation of the Traffic Rules, shows dangerous practices, and manifests a disregard for safety.

6. Star India Pvt. Ltd (Chernoboyl): The web-series promo aired on an OTT platform featured footage with frames showing a bloodied hand and a patient with the bloodied face related to nuclear energy during the live streaming of cricket. The advertiser positioned the Promo as a lesson in history for viewers of all ages. While the promo may sensitize the youth of the country about the risks involved with nuclear energy, two frames in particular were inappropriate for viewing by children. The mini-series promo could be viewed by minors when played during family viewing hours and hence was considered to be in contravention of the ASCI Code.

7. Cashfree Payments India Private Limited (Cashfree): The website advertisement’s claim “Instant Refund” for “online payments and cash on delivery payments. Independent of banking hours” was considered misleading. The CCC observed that the website communication in a section above the heading “products” claimed, “Instant Refund” which was for “online payments and cash on delivery payments. Independent of banking hours”, whereas the “payment gateway” - a product under the heading “product” was for receiving local and international payments in two days. The advertiser did not provide any evidence of “instant payment” product delivering as per the claim despite a specific request by ASCI.  The CCC concluded that the claim, “Instant Refund” is misleading by ambiguity and omission of a mention that it is a “product” for merchants.

Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI for misleading advertisements

The advertisements given below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Motu surveillance of Print and TV media via the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 409 advertisements that were picked, 128 cases were resolved immediately wherein the advertisers confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the complaints. Of the 281 advertisements examined by the CCC, complaints against 278 advertisements were upheld. Of these 278 advertisements, 193 belonged to the Education sector, 59 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, seven belonged to the Personal Care category, and 19 fell in the “Others” category.

Education

The CCC found that the claims made in following 35 advertisements were misleading by exaggeration, exploited consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The source of the claims were not mentioned in many of the advertisements. The advertisements also violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising for Educational Institutions and Programs.

1. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zee Educare): The print advertisement’s claim, “India's Largest Education Festival” is misleading by exaggeration. It was observed that there were many other Career, Education and Training Trade Shows in India in 2019;  the advertiser failed to provide any authentic verifiable comparative data of the magnitude of other such education festivals and thus, did not have any basis to make a comparative or superlative claim.

2. Chate Group (Chate Coaching Classes):  The print advertisement’s claim, “The only Class Providing Highest Merit” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data and is misleading by exaggeration. There was no support data provided nor any evidence of comparison with other similar coaching classes, to prove that they are the only classes to provide highest merit compared to all the others, by providing coaching for the claimed courses.

3. Future World School: The print advertisement’s claim, “For the first time in school education, we have introduced special labs to activate the brain which makes your child a super talent”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s school to prove that they are the first to introduce special labs for children. The CCC opined that it is not possible for any school to conduct such comparative study given the nature of the educational sector and number of schools and it was unlikely for the school to have such support data.

4. IIS: The print advertisement’s claim, “deemed to be university" was misleading. The presentation of the term “deemed to be UNIVERSITY” in the advertisement gives more prominence to the word “University” and there appeared to be a deliberate attempt to downplay the words “Deemed to be” in terms of font size, colour and weightage. The CCC referred to the advertiser’s website for more details (https://www.iisuniv.ac.in) wherein similar discrepancies were observed that were in contravention of the Supreme Court directions as well as UGC notice.

5. G.D Goenka School (Aligarh) Public: The print advertisement’s claim, “India's Highest Rated School Chain” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or ranking data of the advertiser’s school chain and other school chains in India or through a third-party validation.

6. Ace Academy: The print advertisement’s claim, “Gives guarantee of more than 90% marks in only 5 days” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data.

7. Bansal Classes Private Limited: The print advertisement’s claim, “The Leader” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s classes and other similar classes, to prove that they are superior than all the rest in providing coaching for the courses claimed, or through an independent third- party validation.

8. CLC Career Line Coaching: The print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Selections in Haryana since last 3 years in MBBS, IIT & NIT” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertiser did not provide any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar coaching institutes in Haryana, on year on year basis for the last three years as claimed, to prove that they have given the highest selection of students in MBBS, IIT and NIT each year.

9. V. K Coaching: The print advertisement’s claim, “The only option for selection in Railway” was not substantiated with any market survey data, or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes, to prove that they are the only institute to provide coaching for the Railway entrance exams guaranteeing selection, or through an independent third- party validation.
10. The Sardana International School: The print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Selection % in India” was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and implication as the advertiser did not provide any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar schools, to prove that they have given the highest selection percentage of students for the claimed courses in India.

11. Himachal Pradesh University (University College of Business Studies): The print advertisement’s claim, “Winner of the Asia's Most Trusted Business School Award-2016.” was inadequately substantiated; the claim was not qualified to mention the source of research.

12. Vivekananda Degree & PG College: The print advertisement’s claim, “The Only College Bagged Highest No. of University Ranks” was not substantiated with any ranking data for their students, or any verifiable comparative data, prove that the advertiser is the only college to get the highest number of university ranks as compared to all others.

13. Abhiprerna Defence Academy – Abhiprerna: The print advertisement’s claim, “Special guarantee batch - no fees if not selected” was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute in various jobs as advertised,  contact details of students for verification and enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor an independent audit conducted nor any verification certificate. The advertiser did not substantiate with supporting evidence of fee refund issued to non-selected students.

14. Abhiprerna Career Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “Make Your Child Fastest, Smartest and Most Genius” was not substantiated. It was observed that the advertiser was promoting a pre-foundation, abacus and a third eye activation programme for students in 8^th, 9^th and 10^th standard. However, the advertiser did not provide any verifiable supporting data to show that the children trained under their institution have become faster, smarter and more genius as compared to students in other institutes.

15. Captain Batra Classes: The print advertisement’s claim, “The only institute providing highest success” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes, to prove that they are the only institute to have given the highest success as compared to all the others, by providing training for the claimed courses.

16. Govindam Defence Academy – Govindam Degree College: The print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Selection Ratio throughout Rajasthan” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any supporting data or evidence of comparison with other similar institutes in Rajasthan, to prove that they have given the highest selection ratio of students in Air force and Navy sector.

17. Raisoni Group of Institutions – G H Raisoni College of Engineering : The print advertisement’s claims, “1^st amongst private engineering colleges in Maharashtra - NIRF Ranking 2019” and “1^st amongst private engineering institutions in Nagpur and in Public Perception - NIRF Ranking 2019” were not substantiated and were in contravention of the NIRF Advisory; which does not permit further slicing and dicing of their ranking data and was used without explicit permission from NIRF. 

18. LNCT University: The print advertisement’s claim, “Awarded as the Most Trusted Brand of Madhya Pradesh” was not substantiated with copy of the award certificates, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the awards received such as the year, source, category, and details about the awarding body.

19. Somalwar of Academy Professional Studies: The print advertisement’s claim, “Most Trusted Supplementary Education Provider” was not substantiated. The advertiser failed to provide any market survey data, any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutions, to prove that they are more trusted as compared to all others in providing supplementary education to their students.

20. Savitribai Phule Pune University: The print advertisement’s claim, “The second largest university in India owing to the number of colleges affiliated to it” was not substantiated.

21. AAKSC: The print advertisement’s claim, “The most reliable name for Medical & Engineering Entrances” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes, to prove that they are more reliable than all the rest in providing coaching for medical and engineering entrance exams, or through a third - party validation.

22. Mauli Institute of Mathematics: The print advertisement’s claim, “The most trusted name for success in JEE” was not substantiated with any market research data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove they are more trusted than all other similar institutes, for providing courses in Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), or through a third- party validation.

23. ALLEN Career Institute:  The print advertisement’s claim, “Country's largest coaching institute” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that they are larger than all the rest in India, in providing various professional courses, or through a third- party validation.

24. Asha Deep Senior Secondary School: The print advertisement’s claim “Most Trusted Institution in Education” was without any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institution and other similar institutions, to prove that their institution is the most trusted as compared to all the others, or through a third party validation.

25. Banasthali Vidyapith: The print advertisement’s claim “University for women: University with a difference” and its presentation with the prominent use of the word “University”, was misleading; the status for the advertised institution as declared in the advertisement (“Notified Under Section 3 of the UGC Act”) was “Deemed to be University” and contravened UGC guidelines regarding the declaration of the status of the institute. 

26. Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham: The print advertisement’s claim “Vidyapeetham” in the name of the institute was misleading by implication and by omission of the status being “Deemed to be University”. The CCC observed that the status for the advertised institution (as declared “Notified Under Section 3 of the UGC Act”) was “Deemed to be University” and contravened UGC guidelines regarding the declaration of the status of the institute. 

27. Engineering Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “An Institute Providing Highest Selections since Last 2 Years” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

28. Gurukul-IAS: The print advertisement’s claim “Join Our Foundation Course Post 10+2 and Get Government Job” was misleading by exaggeration as it was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of the students who were provided with government jobs after completion of the foundation course post 10+2 offered by the advertiser’s institute.

29. SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies: The print advertisements claim “Category 1 University” is misleading; upon further investigation it was observed that the advertiser used the word ` Category 1 University’ twice instead of “Category 1: Deemed to be University” which was the status granted by University Grants Commission. The format used in “Category 1 University” was the same as that of the trademark registered.

30.  NEET Possible: The print advertisement’s claim “Take admission in NEET Possible to get selected in 1st attempt”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of students who were selected at first attempt on completion of NEET/AIIMS/Foundation courses as claimed.

31. (Sri Kautilya) Achievement Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “Most Reliable Institute of Moradabad”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes in Moradabad, to prove that they are more reliable than all the rest in providing coaching for various government exams, or through a third party validation.

32. Achiever Career Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “Educational Group Producing Highest Number of Doctors (More Than 20,000) All Over India From Kota Since 20 Years”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

33. Achievers Academy: The print advertisement’s claim “Highest Selection in Alwar in JEE-Main-2019”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

34. ALLEN Career Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “Highest Selections among All Institutes of Ujjain”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data, or through an independent third-party validation.

35. Master Mind Tutorials Pvt. Ltd.- Write Right India : The print advertisement’s claim, “India's most reliable writing improvement institute”, “Money Back 100% Guarantee” was not substantiated with any market survey data, with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in India, to prove that it is more reliable than all the rest in training students for improvement in their handwriting,  or through a third- party validation and with supporting evidence of students whose handwriting did not improve and hence were refunded with full paid fees.

Complaints against advertisements of 158 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated AND misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/100% placement assistance OR they claim to be the No.1 and Best in their respective fields.

Healthcare

The CCC found that the claims made in the following 37 advertisements were misleading that exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and could lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Several claims were misleading by exaggeration.

1. Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute: The print advertisement’s claim, “Pioneers in Overcoming Parkinson's” was not substantiated with proof that they were pioneers in the treatment of Parkinson’s nor any robust supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients treated and cured of / overcoming Parkinson’s at their hospital.

2. Solanki Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Most trusted place for treatment in Alwar”, the mention of words "Most Trusted" is not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other hospitals in Alwar. The source for the claim is not indicated in the advertisement.

3. Gayatri Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim, “Quit alcohol without the knowledge of the person” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy data. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, the medicines for quitting alcohol, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities.

4. Strides Pharma Science Limited: The television advertisement’s claim “3 times more effective”, was not adequately substantiated; the material relied on was not specific to Indians and does not unambiguously support its claim that its lozenge is 3 times more effective in aiding a person to quit smoking. The advertisement violated the ASCI Guidelines on Disclaimers as it was not in the same language as the voiceover.
5. Olivia Skin & Hair Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim, “Provide permanent solution for underarm sweat” was not substantiated with any details of the treatment procedure to support their claim as to how they provide a permanent solution of underarm sweating through miraDry equipment as claimed. The second claim “FDA approved” was not substantiated with supporting treatment procedure and evidence of the treatment/equipment being approved by Indian FDA.

6. Pratiraj Herbal Pharmacy (Ayurvedic Hair Oil): The print advertisement’s claim, “Regrow fallen hair in one week only” was not substantiated with product efficacy data. The claim implies that the product cures baldness which is misleading by gross exaggeration. It was observed that the advertiser did not provide product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork, evidence of the ingredients present in the product, nor any relevant extracts of ayurvedic references in support of the claim.

7. Shul Marin Ayurvedic Oil: The print advertisement’s claim, “Removes joints pain, arthritis pain from the roots in 30 days.” was not substantiated with clinical evidence of product efficacy. The product may give only temporary relief from pain but does not provide proof to cure the diseases – especially within 30 days as claimed. 

8. Viva Live The Life: The print advertisement’s claim “America's Best” was not substantiated with any published reports or comparative data versus other techniques used in the USA to prove that the treatment was America’s best treatment. The second claim “The Most Advanced and Successful Fat Eliminating Method” was not substantiated with supporting published scientific research papers or clinical evidence in statistically significant number of volunteers.

9. Aadhar Health Institute: The print advertisement’s claim, “With Obesity surgery, patients can get rid of other diseases too (Such as Diabetes, Heart Attack, Infertility)” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not provide clinical or scientific data to prove that treatment through bariatric surgery helps obese people get rid of the claimed diseases on a permanent basis.

10. Hartej Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Offering best cure rates in cancer patients” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of cancer patients cured at their hospital.  The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the medicines used for cure of cancer, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities, nor did the advertiser prove that their cure rates are higher as compared to all other hospitals.

11. Star Ayurveda: The print advertisement’s claim, “The only Hospital in South India which is giving wonderful and Highest Number of results” was not substantiated; the advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other Hospitals in South India. The second claim “World's 1st Integrated Clinic” was not substantiated with any verifiable market research / survey data worldwide to prove that they are the pioneers worldwide to introduce an integrated clinic.

12. (Sukhayu)  Sushrut Ayurvedic Multispecialty Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Permanently cures patients suffering from piles, fistula, and fissure by providing 30 minutes treatment” was not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence in statistically significant number of patients suffering from the conditions advertised being permanently cured by the 30- minute treatment at their clinic.

13. Jothi Piles and Fistula Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Piles can be prevented through their traditional 150 year’s old Siddha Vaidhya method treatment for all” was not substantiated to prove prophylactic benefits of their treatment. The advertiser did not submit any authentic and verifiable data like details of the treatment procedure for the claimed disease, nor any details regarding the medicines being used, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities. There were no scientific rationale or published literature references to support the treatment claimed.

14. Master’s Homeopathy: The print advertisement’s claims, “People suffering from Alzheimer's with the effect of homeo medicines on the blood vessels patient become normal soon, Homeo has the effective treatment which can stop hepatitis virus by reducing the viral load completely, within just 3 months hepatitis and herpes symptoms all can be cured, Varicose veins can be cured easily with Homeo treatment.” All these claims were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not submit any verifiable data like details of the treatment procedure for the claimed diseases, nor any details regarding the medicines being used, and their approval status by the regulatory authorities. There was no scientific rationale or published literature references to support the treatment claimed. 

15. Sadbhavna Nursing Home: The print advertisement’s claim, “Provide painless delivery” was not substantiated with any clinical evidence in statistically significant number of women who had painless deliveries without any other intervention such as pain killers/ local anesthesia or epidural injections.

16. Dr. Pravin Patel’s Innovative Hospital & Research Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “The only hospital in Gujarat to provide homeopathic, allopathic, ayurvedic, …… treatment with ultramodern facilities” . The advertisement makes reference to providing effective treatment for diabetes, cancer, heart diseases, thyroid implying cure for these diseases. The advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other hospitals, to prove that they are the only hospital in Gujarat providing treatment for the various diseases claimed via multiple modalities.

17. Dr. Meet’s Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim “India's No.1 Anti Hair Loss Clinic”, was not substantiated either  with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other hair clinics in India, to prove their claim to be in a leadership position (No.1) than all the rest in treating people for hair problems, or any study conducted through an independent third party to validate the entitlement. The source for the claim was not mentioned in the print advertisement. The second claim “Best & most effective, scientific Natural DHT blocker treatment” was not substantiated with robust clinical data. The advertiser also did not provide any details of the Natural DHT blocker t