ASCI upheld complaints against 225 ads in December 2019

During the month of December 2019, ASCI investigated complaints against 310 advertisements, of which 77 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertisers on receipt of communication from ASCI. The independent Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI evaluated remaining 233 advertisements, of which complaints against 225 advertisements were upheld. Of these 225 advertisements, 124 belonged to the education sector, 66 belonged to the healthcare sector, seven to the food & beverages sector, six to personal care and 22 were from the ‘others’ category.

Call for entries open for BuzzInContent Awards 2020 ENTER NOW

A famous online shopping website was found misleading consumers by advertising a coupon code offering discount on all orders. Print advertisement of one of the famous alcohol brands in India was upheld because of surrogate advertising and violating ASCI’s guidelines of brand extension products. A widely used toothbrush brand could not substantiate a claim of being India’s No. 1 Toothbrush brand, recommended by Dentists. ASCI, through its Suo Motu surveillance picked advertisements that were in violation of Guidelines for celebrities in advertisement. An advertisement featuring a famous Bollywood star endorsing the claim “India's First Hygienic Gym” was found to be misleading. Claims made by one advertiser marketing ayurvedic eye drops co-promoted with a movie release and endorsed by the two protagonist actresses in the movie were not substantiated. Another advertisement by the same advertiser for women’s health tonic featuring a yesteryear Bollywood celebrity was found to be misleading.

Four years ago this month, ASCI introduced WhatsApp number 7710012345 for consumers for quick, easy and free redressal of their complaints against objectionable advertisements. The number of consumers contacting ASCI via WhatsApp from across India has steadily increased over the years, more so after many channels started carrying this number in their scroll as per the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advisory of January 2019 creating awareness about ASCI. The number of complaints attributed to this WhatsApp source have tripled.

Shweta Purandare

According to Shweta Purandare, Secretary General, ASCI, “Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, there is widespread anxiety, confusion and fear amongst public at large. ASCI is monitoring advertisements that are making unsubstantiated and opportunistic claims. We have issued notices to advertisers for immediate suspension of such advertisements pending investigation. ASCI’s active Social Media listening as well as availability of the WhatsApp number 7710012345 during the lock down period have been key in enabling ASCI to act swiftly.”

Education: - 124 advertisements complained against

• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (124 advertisements)

Healthcare: - 66 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Five advertisement)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (61 advertisements)

Food and Beverages: - Seven advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (One advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Six advertisements)

Personal Care: - Six advertisement complained against

• Direct Complaints (Three advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Three advertisements)

Others: - 22 advertisements complained against

• Direct Complaints (Four advertisements)
• Suo Motu Surveillance by ASCI (Eighteen advertisements)

Direct complaints

The advertisements given below were complained against by the general public or by industry members. Of the 33 advertisements complained against, 12 advertisements were promptly withdrawn by the advertiser on receiving communication from ASCI. For the remaining 21 advertisements, complaints against 13 advertisements were upheld by the CCC. Five advertisement belonged to the Healthcare sector, three advertisements belonged to Personal Care, one from the F&B, and four from the others category. Eight advertisements were not considered to be objectionable or in contravention of the ASCI code.

Healthcare

1. TTK Healthcare Ltd: The advertisement’s claim “Virginity can be cured” was considered to be in bad taste and implies as if “virginity” is a disease, thereby deriding a virgin boy or a virgin girl. The second claim “Pheromone Activating Spray” was also found to be misleading. The advertiser has provided an invitro test report for the active ingredients in the said product. However, no in vivo test data on human beings was provided. The claim should have been accompanied by a clear Disclaimer mentioning that the above product was tested only in vitro cellular model and not on humans.

2. LifeCell International Private Limited: The television advertisement’s voice over claim “That is how we could find a matching stem cell for Shweta (his wife) and treat blood cancer” is in-correct, because more than 99.9% of children are not Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched with either parent. The advertisement clearly indicates that in view of the small child donating its Cord cell, later the child’s mother was successfully treated for Blood Cancer. The advertiser quoted “National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research” released by Indian Council of Medical Research &Department of Biotechnology” which states that 80 hematological medical conditions can be treated with umbilical cord blood stem cells. From the facts presented by the advertiser, it is explicitly clear that while the advertiser claims to be “India’s largest Stem Cell Bank” and that they are having over 40,000 samples, not a single transplant has been done. Therefore the advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and omission with respect to the probability of success of finding a suitable match and two such matches in case of adult individuals. Promotion of Community/Personal cord blood banking for use by individual or his / her family is not justified by any scientific evidence and therefore is not recommended by any scientific society.

The following advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act/ The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, and are being referred to the Ministry of AYUSH:

Personal Care

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Vaseline Body Lotion): The television advertisement’s visuals show unsafe practices such as despite her friends calling out to her, the protagonist climbs on to the roof of the bus, where few people are already seated. It was observed that on the contrary to the disclaimer, this situation depicted in the TVC and the girl’s action was neither a stunt nor a spoof from a movie. The CCC concluded that the TVC and its corresponding YouTube advertisement shows dangerous practices and manifests a disregard for safety.

2. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd (Colgate Zig Zag Toothbrush): The product packaging’s claim “Toothbrush Brand Used & Recommended by Dentists” was not substantiated. As per the advertiser’s feedback, the advertiser is planning to discontinue this claim and are currently transitioning to remove them from all their packs

3. Hahnemann's Jac Olivol Group of Products LLP (Jac Olivol Body Oil) : The print advertisement’s claim “Jac Olivol Herbal Body Oil” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any product specific information such as copy of product label, product composition details, evidence of the herbal ingredients in the product.  The second claim “India’s Largest Selling Herbal Body Oil” was also not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or market research data to prove that their herbal body oil is selling more than all other similar brands in India in terms of value or volume share, or through an independent third-party validation. Source of the claim was not mentioned in the advertisement.

Food and Beverages

1. Nutri Organic Foods. (Strot Ground Nut Oil): The pamphlet advertisement’s claim,” Cholesterol free and Heart friendly”, “Boosts immunity” and “Good for Heart” were not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any product specific details such as composition / license / pack artwork or samples and FSSAI approval for all the claims being made in the Ad - Pamphlet.  They also did not provide any technical data, scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product efficacy, to prove the product’s ability to provide the health benefits claimed in the advertisement.  Furthermore, these claims were not as per the FSSAI’s guidance regarding claim permitted for edible oils such as Groundnut oil and Coconut oil, nor did the advertiser submit any evidence of FSSAI approval for these specific claims.

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. Myntra.com: The website advertisement’s claim offer “Best Offers, Best Price: Rs. 1450, applicable on all orders, Coupon Code: FS 149, Discount Coupon: Rs.149/- off excluding tax (Check cart for final savings)”, was not substantiated with evidence of any of their consumers having availed the offer. It was noted that the claim offer did not carry qualifiers that the offer was subject to any terms and conditions and the website advertisement did not make reference to terms and conditions that consumers might peruse before availing the said offer. The advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

2. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.: The website advertisement’s claim “Book with us and avail a complimentary gift card for use at any Taj Food and Beverage/ Spa outlet. Max gift card value is Rs 3000. Not valid on pay at hotel bookings” was not substantiated. The website advertisement indicates a complimentary gift card for use at any Taj Food and Beverage/ Spa outlet whose max gift card value is Rs 3000 on booking with the said hotel and through MMT portal. The advertiser indicates that the Complainant was only eligible for a Gift Card of INR 500. However, the advertiser was not able to conclusively substantiate how the said limit was applicable despite the offer providing a higher value. The terms and conditions for the offer were not stated clearly and were not readily available for a customer to verify. The advertiser did not submit any evidence that the claimed offer of INR 3000 gift card was availed by any customers, what the exact criteria were for awarding the same to some customers and awarding gift cards of a lower amount to others.

3. Washho Laundry (Washho): The website advertisement’s claims “India’s First International brand in laundry & Dry cleaning focused on providing 100% transparent premium fabric care, cleaning process.”, “Mumbai #1 Laundry Service.” And “India’s Largest cleaning company in Mumbai Now” were not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide any verifiable comparative data of their laundry services to prove that they are pioneers in this field, in leadership position (No.1), and are larger than all the rest for providing the claimed laundry services, nor the claims made were backed by a third party validation. The source for the claims was also not indicated in the advertisement.

4. Asianet Network Private Limited (Asianetnews.com): The advertisements claim “Leader in Malayalam” and “No. 1 Choice of Kerala” were misleading by ambiguity. The leadership claims made by the advertiser in the Emailer are based on COMSCORE “Total unique visitors/viewers” data for September 2019.  The headline numbers upon which the advertiser relies have not been contested by the complainant. The Advertiser’s response to the complaint attempts to delink the data used in the e-mailer from the headlines which appear above it. The advertiser’s response makes it clear that the leadership claims being made in the headline are based not on the numbers, but on assertions of the brand’s leadership position in Kerala.  The advertiser’s contention that ComScore numbers are not linearly additive, is valid. However, the advertiser's response to the key question of basis for the leadership claim is only an assertion. For the basis of the leadership claim made, the advertiser has sought to use statistics to abuse the trust of lay audiences and misleads them into a perception of leadership by an implied association between claims in copy and a data table.

Suo Motu surveillance by ASCI for misleading advertisements

The advertisements listed below were picked up through ASCI’s Suo Motu surveillance of Print and TV media through the National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of 277 advertisements that were picked, in 65 cases the advertisers promptly confirmed that the advertisements were being withdrawn post receiving the ASCI communication. All other 212 advertisements examined by the CCC were considered to be misleading. Of these 212 advertisements, 124 belonged to the Education sector, 61 advertisements belonged to the Healthcare sector, six belonged to the F&B category, three belonged to the Personal Care category, and 18 fell in the “Others” category.

Education

Complaints against advertisements of 108 educational institutes listed below are UPHELD mainly because of unsubstantiated claims AND/OR misleading claims that they provide 100% placement/100% placement assistance AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields/ best in their respective fields. The advertisements also violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs.

The following advertisements violated ASCI’s Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs

1. Settling Abroad Services Pvt. Ltd: The television advertisement’s claim, “Give on the spot offer letter”, “Even if you have been refused by any country then to with our representative you can get 100 per cent visa” was not substantiated with verifiable evidence that each of their customer having received visa including those who were refused visa in any country. The advertiser did not provide a detailed verifiable list of candidates who got on the spot offer letters, evidence to support their enrolment including contact details for independent verification, copies of their appointment letters, a CA certification or an independent third-party claim validation.

2. Lakshmi Narain College of Technology (LNCT Group of Colleges): The print advertisement’s claim “India's biggest student start-up and innovation summit” was not substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable comparative data to prove that the student startup and innovation summit organised by them is bigger compared to those conducted by other institutes in India, or through an independent third-party report.

3. Sankalp Institute: The print advertisement’s claim “The Only Institute Providing Record Breaking Success to 350+ Students in Six Years” was misleading. The advertiser failed to provide any claim support data to prove the claimed record-breaking success in six years.

4. MIT Group of Institutes- MIT School of Government: The television advertisement’s voice over claim as translated from Marathi, “Country's first institute to provide education for politics” was not adequately substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any evidence such as approval for their institute for starting the course for the first time in India from any Government body or market survey data or any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in India offering similar course, to prove that their institute is the “pioneer” in providing coaching for political courses, nor through any independent audit or verification certificate.

5. Rehill Consultant: The television advertisement’s claim as translated from Punjabi, “They get the offer letter in just 3 days” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students and evidence to support their enrolment, list of students with their contact details for verification who received offer letters in three days for study in Canada.

6. Orbit Immigration: The print advertisement’s claim “100% Visa” guaranteeing success in getting visa for each of their customer was misleading. The advertiser did not provide a detailed verifiable list of candidates who have received visas for study and jobs in UK for two years as claimed, verifiable evidence to support their enrolment including contact details for independent verification, copies of their appointment letters, a CA certification or an independent third-party claim validation.

7. Abhivyakti Academy: the print advertisement’s claim, “Free Best Study Material” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes in India, to prove that the study material offered by the institute to their students for the claimed exams is free and is better than all the rest.

8. Adhigam Coaching: The print advertisement’s claim, “Free Best Study Material” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes in India, to prove that the study material offered by the institute to their students is free and is better than all the rest, or through an independent third-party validation.

9. Advanced Law Classes Institute: The print advertisement’s claim, “Best Test Series Available for JLO Exam” was not substantiated with any market survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar coaching institutes in India, to prove that the test series offered by the institute to their students for the JLO Exam is better than the ones provided by others, or through an independent third-party validation.

10. Charms Education & Immigration Services: the print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Visa Approval* Rate in 2019” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any authentic and verifiable data to prove their own success rate in getting visa approvals for their customers on year on year basis. The link provided by the advertiser only provides a broad level information on the visa rejection rate trend. The CCC did not consider the disclaimer indicating T&C apply to be relevant for the claim nor did the advertiser provide any details of these T&Cs and how these justified the superlative claim. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

11. Expert Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd: the print advertisement’s claim, “100% Visa Success” was not substantiated as it was observed that the advertiser only made assertions regarding their success rate. However, the advertiser did not provide a detailed verifiable list of their customers and evidence that each of them was successful in getting a visa for study UK as claimed, or a CA certification or an independent third-party claim validation. Also the advertiser did not provide any evidence of the claim being ratified by the British High Commission as well.

12. Zentex Institute of Banking and Government Services: The print advertisement’s claim “Join for assured success in exam for Police, Railway, TRT, Bank & SSC” was not substantiated with supporting evidence of students and their contact details for verification to indicate that their students were always successful in getting selected for the advertised positions. The print advertisement did not have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is no guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have a declaration of the total number of students passing out from the placed class, hence violating ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

13. Velammal Bodhi Campus: The print advertisement’s claim “The most preferred CBSE School with integrated programme for IIT/NEET in South India” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or any market survey data of the advertiser’s school and other similar schools in South India, or through a third-party validation. The source for the claim was not mentioned in the advertisement. The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

14. Wings : The print advertisement’s claim “Bihar's most prestigious aptitude cum scholarship exam” and “Patna's most renowned faculty team at Wings” were not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Bihar, to prove that their institute’s aptitude cum scholarship exam is more prestigious or their faculty team is more renowned than all other institutes in Patna, or through an independent third party validation.

15. Global VISA Helpline Pvt. Ltd: The television advertisement’s claim, “100 per cent visa success rate” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide a detailed verifiable list of their customers and evidence that each of them was successful in getting a visa for study and jobs in UK as claimed.

16. Shreeji Consultancy: The print advertisement’s claim, “100% Visa Ratio” was not substantiated as the advertiser failed to provide any data document source of the claim particularly for the job seekers in United Kingdom.

Healthcare

1. Divisa Herbal Care (Eye Mantra Eye Drops): The television advertisement’s claim as translated from Hindi “Give you sharp and clear vision” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide product efficacy data or robust clinical study to prove that the product improves vision. The advertiser is also promoting the movie ‘Saand Ki Aaank’ featuring Bollywood divas Taapsee Pannu and Bhumi Pednekarand they are shown talking about the product. The advertisers however did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrities had done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the TVC are capable of substantiation.  The TVC contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

2. Divisa Herbal Care (Sachi Saheli Ayurvedic Syrup): The television advertisement’s claim “The most trusted (bharosemand) medicine and tonic for females” featuring Bollywood actress Raveena Tandon was not substantiated. The voiceover claim was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other similar products for females available in the market, to prove that they are more trusted for female health problems, or through a third party validation. The source for the voice over claim was not indicated in the TVC. Additionally, the advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrity had done due diligence prior to endorsement, to ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the TVC are capable of substantiation.  The TVC contravened ASCI’s Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising.

3. High Hopes: the print advertisement’s claim, “Reduce Weight in Scheduled Time without Exercise, Gym, Any Medicine or Any Type of Dieting” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence and with treatment efficacy data shared by the advertiser to prove the efficacy of this treatment regardless of health status of the patients and in a time bound manner.

4. Lizten Hearing Hub Pvt Ltd: The television advertisement’s claim, “Odisha's most trusted speech therapy and hearing aid clinic” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data, of the advertiser’s clinic and other similar speech therapy and hearing aid clinics in Odisha, to prove that they are more trusted than the others, for treating patients with speech and hearing disabilities, nor the claim was backed with a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the TVC.

5. Jolly Pharma (Jolly K7 Malam): The television advertisement’s claims as translated from Punjabi, “Permanent ayurvedic solution/remedy for ringworm, itching and fungal infection like many skin infections” and “Any kind of itching ends instantly” were inadequately substantiated. The advertiser did not provide product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork, evidence of the ingredients present in the product, nor any clinical evidence of efficacy of their product to provide permanent effect or instant effect in curing skin infection conditions.

6. Aayna Clinic: The print advertisement’s claim, “A 30 Minutes Session Equals 20,000 Crunches” was not substantiated. The advertisement is promoting an Emsculpt treatment procedure and the headline emphasizes that it is a “workout” without the work out. The CCC noted that references given as claim support are from modern aesthetics / BTL aesthetics both being commercial entities. The advertiser has submitted highlights of advertisement inserts or presentations published in abstracts of the conference of American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) 2018. Furthermore, the references provided only brief information and not the complete protocol and the test results. There was no specific mention of “Emsculpt” use and / or its equivalence to “Hifem” being quoted OR any equivalence to “crunch” like effect being achieved. No scientific proof is given, neither is it specific about Abs or Butts though Pictures in the advertisement show abs of both male and female model. The claim was found misleading by exaggeration for lack of claim support data.

7. Gem Hospital:  The print advertisement’s claim “India's Largest Gastroenterology, Laparoscopic Super Specialty Hospital” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other Gastroenterology, Laparoscopic Hospitals in India, to prove that they are larger than the rest, or through an audited report or third-party validation.

8. Dr. Sandeep Mithal Advanced Phaco-Refractive & Vitreo-Retina Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Best in Eye Treatment Since 42 Years” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data on year on year basis since the last 42 years as claimed, of the advertiser’s centre and other Eye Treatment centres, to prove that their treatment is better than all the rest, or through an independent third party validation.

9. Dr. Kavita IVF Centre:  The print advertisement’s claim, “Most Cheapest and Most Successful Centre of U.P and Uttarakhand” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s center and other IVF treatment centers in U.P and Uttarakhand, to prove that their treatment charges are the lowest and that their success rate in IVF treatment is higher than all the rest.

10. Dr. A Khan: The print advertisement’s claim, “Completely Cure Baldness Problem Through Medicines” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence in patients who were completely cured of baldness through use of the advertiser’s medicines. The advertiser also did not provide any details of this treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the medicines used for baldness, their approval status by the regulatory authorities.

>

11. A4 Clinics: The print advertisement’s claim, “#1 Robotic Neuro Rehab and Brain Stimulation Centre” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other Neuro Rehab and Brain Stimulation Centers, to prove that they are in leadership position in providing robotic neuro rehab and brain simulation treatment services to their patients, or through an independent third-party validation.

12. Aradhna Maternity and Kidney Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Best Dialysis Centre” was unsubstantiated as the advertiser did not provide any market survey data, or verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other Kidney hospitals, to prove that they are better than the rest in providing Dialysis treatment for their patients, or through an independent third party validation.

13. Saya Industries Saya Herbal Pan Masala: The print advertisement’s claim, “Helpful in Quitting Addiction like Cigarette, Tobacco” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy. The second claim, “100% Herbal” was not substantiated with any details of the product composition to prove that each of its ingredient is of herbal origin, nor any third party certification.

14. Jeevan Jyoti Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Cancer Prevention, Treatment and Palliative Care” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not submit any authentic and 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 were no scientific rationale or published literature references to support the treatment claimed by the advertiser.

15. GBL Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Central India's First One and Only Devoted Centre to Provide Best Treatment for Stomach and Liver Related Diseases” was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data or through an independent third-party validation. The advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other similar Hospitals treating liver and digestive diseases in Central India, to prove that they are the pioneers and are the only treatment center to exclusively provide treatment for the ailments claimed.

16. Hearing Aid Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “India's No.1 Ear Hearing Restoration Company” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s company and other Hearing restoration / hearing aid companies in India, to prove that they are in leadership position (No.1) or through an independent third party validation.

17. Go Slim Fitness & Health Clinic:  The print advertisement’s claims, “Reduce Fat and Weight Without Exercise or Medicine” and “Very Effective Option for Removing Fat Without Operation Than Bariatric Or Liposuction Surgery” were not substantiated. The treatment efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the treatment are misleading. The advertiser did not provide details of their treatment procedure for weight reduction and fat loss, nor any weight and fat loss data based on rigorous clinical trial.  There was no scientific rationale or published literature references to support how the cavilypolysis treatment alone is beneficial in reducing a significant weight (9 kg in 3 months) without any exercise / diet / medicine and yet more effective than Bariatric surgery as claimed.

18. Asian Healthcare (Asian City Hospital): The print advertisement’s claim, “The Best and Economical Maternity & Gynecology Centre of Patna” was not substantiated with market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other hospitals in Patna, to prove that the maternity and gynaecological centre at their hospital is better than all the rest in providing care and treatment for their patients, or through an independent third party validation.

19. Fortune Hospital Pvt. Ltd: The print advertisement’s claim, “Freedom from Blood Pressure, Sugar and Permanent freedom from Obesity” was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence from the advertiser. It was observed that the advertiser is offering bariatric surgery without providing any published literature or scientific data to prove that treatment through bariatric surgery cures people of obesity, diabetes and blood pressure on permanent basis. The CCC noted that such benefits on permanent basis are unlikely given the inherent medical conditions and importance of other lifestyle management interventions that were not mentioned in the advertisement.

20. Lakshmi Clinic: The print advertisement’s claims, “By Taking Treatment, Patient Gets Well for Lifetime”, “Cure Asthma, Allergy, Sugar, Nasal Catarrh from the Roots With Chinese Machine and Laser Treatment” and “Make Knee Straight Without Operation” were not substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence. The advertiser did not submit any authentic and 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 were no scientific rationale or published literature references to support the treatment claimed.

21. Mothers Lap IVF Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Awarded as Delhi's Most Trusted IVF Centre” was not substantiated as the advertiser did not provide copy of the award certificate, reference of the award received such as the year, source, category, the basis of the award or the survey methodology. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The advertisement also contravened ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.

22. Niramay Ayurvedic Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Gujarat's Best Ayurvedic Hospital for Oncology-Hematology-Neurology-Rheumatology Disease Treatment” was not substantiated with any market survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other similar hospitals, to prove that they are better than all the rest in providing ayurvedic oncology, haematology, neurology, rheumatology  treatment to their patients, or through an independent third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.

23. Master’s Homeopathy: The print advertisement’s claim, “With Homeo Treatment Herpes will not Attack Again” was not substantiated. The advertiser did not provide any details of the homeopathic treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the medicines and their approval status by the regulatory authorities nor any published scientific references in support of the claims.

24. Amritdhara Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Painless Delivery” was not substantiated with robust clinical evidence of pregnant women who delivered babies without pain. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, modalities of the delivery procedure, nor any details whether the procedure involved the use of any pain killers/local anesthesia or epidural injections.

25. Vibes Healthcare Ltd –Vibes Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Fat Freezing Cryolipolysis for Permanent Inch Loss in Single Session”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence.  The advertiser did not provide details of their treatment procedure to prove that it results in inch loss on permanent basis nor robust clinical data among their patients who achieved permanent inch loss in a single session.

26. Gaurav Hospital: The print advertisement’s claim, “Highest Normal Delivery Rate” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data or through an independent third party validation. The Advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with other hospitals, to prove that their hospital has highest normal delivery rates compared to other hospitals.

27. Origin Multi Specialty Hospital:  The print advertisement’s claim, “Origin has the Most Modern IVF Center in India” was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and other IVF centres in India, to prove their IVF treatment and amenities provided for infertility treatment are most modern compared to other IVF centers, or through an independent third-party report.

28. Sreedhareeyam Ayurvedic Eye Clinics & Panchakarma Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “World's Largest Ayurvedic Eye Care”  was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data for worldwide of the advertiser’s  clinic  and other eye treatment centres/clinics globally, to prove that they are larger than the rest, or through an audited report or third-party validation.

29. Ayurved Amritam: The print advertisement’s claim, “Quit Alcohol and Cigarette without the Knowledge of the Person” was not substantiated with robust clinical evidence. The advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the medicines and their approval status by the regulatory authorities.

30. Ayurved Research Centre: The print advertisement’s claim, “Get Rid of Alcoholism without the Knowledge of the Person (Alcoholic)” was not substantiated with robust clinical evidence by the advertiser to proof efficacy of the treatment procedure, any details regarding the medicines and their approval status by the regulatory authorities.

31. Medanta (The Medanta Institute of Liver Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine): The print advertisement’s claim “India's Most Experienced Team with Highest Success Rates in Transplant (Liver Failure, Children's Liver Diseases, ABO-incompatible Transplant, Swap transplant Issues)”  was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data, of the advertiser’s medical center and other similar medical centers in India, to prove that the team at their medical center is more experienced than any other team, and that their success rate in transplants is better than all other teams. The claim was also not backed by an independent third party validation and the source of the same was not indicated in the advertisement.

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act / The Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, and are being referred to the Ministry of AYUSH: