CCC Recommendations - August 2018 - ascionline.org recommendations - august 2018.pdfCCC Recommendations - August 2018 COMPANY: Nilaai Educational Trust Group of Institutes Complaint:

CCC Recommendations - August 2018

COMPANY: Nilaai Educational Trust Group of Institutes

Complaint:

“The advertisement is for promotion of their college courses and admission related. The mail ID

of the institute is [email protected]

As per the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs no

institution Advertisement shall not state or lead the public to believe that enrollment in the

institution or program or preparation course or coaching classes will provide the student a

temporary or permanent job but the advertisement states that 100% placement which is

misleading the students to take admission the Institute also it is promoting PMKVY which is a

government run program and is clubbing the advertisement with its Education advertisement

which is again misleading the students.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the

complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request

to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the

ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted

that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this

complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “100% 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, and is misleading by exaggeration. The

advertisement is also misleading as it promoting a government run program – PMKVY, along

with their other courses, which is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD

COMPANY: Ashok & Co. – Pan Bahar Ltd.

PRODUCT: Bahar Select Pan Masala

Complaint:

This advertisement is of a Pan Masala and it is attractive lyrics and tune which has rhyme and

attracts children. I have encountered that majority of children of age 6 - 15 years sing along when

add comes and has lyrics "Bheer mne na tum atko" conveying that you should not follow crowd

but should shine apart from them by using this pan masala. Moreover at end the message that pan

masala chewing is injurious to health is played at very fast speed mocking the rule of Govt. for

this message.

1. The advertisement is being played almost every 10 minutes on popular FM channel 92.7

at prime time.

2. Children are listening and getting attracted to pan masala chewing by this frequency and

lyrics of add.

3. The fast speed with which the Waring of pan masala chewing is injurious to health is

played mocks of rules made by Govt. of India for health.

Yes this indeed is the advertisement which is being played on radio too frequently and even

Sundays etc. Kids are singling along this add because of rhyme. It is conveying that to be perfect

you can eat pan masala.







complaint. The CCC heard the Radio advertisement and observed that towards the end of the

advertisement, the speed of spoken cautionary message “paan masala chabana haanikarak hai”,

and the volume of the audio contravened Clause XI of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers

(“……the speed of spoken disclaimers should not exceed 6 syllables per second and its volume

should be at the same level as the rest of the audio”). The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Udaipur Study Circle

Claim Objected To:

“The only institute of UGC in South Rajasthan which has given highest selections in

IAS/RAS/RPS and Teachers Post”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in

the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI

Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied through their advocates. The advocate on behalf

of the advertiser replied requesting for an extension of 15-20 days to submit their response. The

advertiser was granted an extension of seven days to the standard lead time of seven days to

submit their reply in response to their request for this extension. However, the Advertiser did

not submit their response by the extended due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement

and observed that the Advertiser did not provide any support data or evidence of comparison with

other similar institutes to prove they are the only institute in South Rajasthan to give highest

selections for the claimed career courses. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “The only institute of UGC in South Rajasthan which has given highest

selections in IAS/RAS/RPS and Teachers Post”, was not substantiated, and is misleading by

exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational


was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Denajee Health Care Products

Claim Objected To:

“No.1 Satreetha Shampoo”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had

stated in their response that the claim made is basis that that Satreetha Shampoo is the highest

selling product than their other healthcare products shown in the advertisement.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given

by the advertiser, the CCC noted that the claim was not substantiated. The CCC concluded that

the claim, “No.1 Satreetha Shampoo”, is misleading by omission of a qualifier to mention that

the claim is based on the said product being No.1 amongst “their” other own products. The claim

is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Goodlife Wellness Centre

Claims Objected To:

1. Reduce 20 Kg weight till 20 July'18.

2. Get assured result.


The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in the

complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI

Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that

no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint.

Advertiser did not provide details of the treatment procedure for weight reduction, nor any weight

loss data based on rigorous trial on statistically significant number of patients. The CCC viewed

the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of

any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Reduce 20

Kg weight till 20 July'18”, and “Get assured result”, were not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. The

claims exploit the consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Abbott India Ltd

PRODUCT: Abbott Brufen Active

Claim Objected To:

“Worldwide Trusted”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the grievances of the



ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser

had stated in their response that the brand Brufen was conceptualised to be used with respect to

the drug Ibuprofen in the pain management segment. Brufen is the world's number one Ibuprofen

brand by volume, for which the advertiser quoted the Source: IMS (IQVIA).

Database). Advertiser provided a copy of product approval licence.


by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the product – Brufen Active does not contain ibuprofen

as an active ingredient. The product is Ayurvedic and does not contain ibuprofen. The CCC

considered the reference of “Worldwide trusted” meant for Brufen – an Ibuprofen containing

brand in leadership position, being used for non-Ibuprofen brand Brufen Active false, misleading

by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI

Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Henna Industries Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Color Mate Hair color

Claim Objected To:

“Hibiscus Strengthens your hair and prevents hair loss”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response through their advocates.

The advocate on behalf of the advertiser had stated in their response that the product contains

Hibiscus flower as an ingredient known as "Gudhal" which helps in hair growth, hair loss and

hair regrowth.

Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the

advocate, the CCC observed that the advocate’s response has only assertions about the benefits

of Hibiscus flower. However, the advertiser did not provide any details regarding this Product /

product label, and Product composition details. The advertiser did not submit any scientific

rationale regarding the use of Hibiscus, in the advertised Hair colour formulation, and how the

ingredient would provide any claimed benefits in this product format. In the absence of claim

support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Hibiscus Strengthens your hair and prevents

hair loss”, is misleading by implication that hibiscus in the hair colour product would strengthen

hair and prevent hair loss. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in

the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.

The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Diamond Water Park Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Diamond Park

Claim Objected To:

“Pune's No.1 Water and Adventure Park”


The ASCI approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objection raised in the




The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in

the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Pune's No.1 Water and Adventure Park”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative

data of the advertised park and other similar Water and Adventure Parks in Pune, to prove that it

is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest, or through a third party validation. The source for

the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is

likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Diamond Water Park Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Diamond Park

Claim Objected To:

“Voted Pune's No.1 Park”








“Voted Pune's No.1 Park”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or through

verifiable comparative data of the advertised park and other similar Water and Adventure Parks

in Pune, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest, or through a third party

validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is

misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


COMPANY: Dr. Richa’s Unique Clinic

Claims Objected To:

“International Certified No.1 Clinic”

“Height Treatment - increase height 2-7 cm within 2 months”








“International Certified No.1 Clinic”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the

advertiser’s clinic being internationally certified, and is misleading by exaggeration. Advertiser

did not provide details of the products used for treatment, their composition, treatment procedure

for height increase, nor any treatment efficacy data based on rigorous trial on statistically

significant number of patients. The claim, “Height Treatment - increase height 2-7 cm within 2

months”, was not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims implying

treatment for height increase, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs

& Magic Remedies Act (Item No.47 under DMR Schedule). The claim is misleading by gross

exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters

I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr. Richa’s Unique Clinic

Claim Objected To:

“India's best doctors”








“India’s Best Doctors”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

clinic and other similar clinics, to prove that their doctors are better than the rest, or through an

independent third party validation. The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration. The claim is



UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr.Richa’s Unique Clinic

Claims Objected To:

1. Reduce 1-50 kg weight/ 1-50 inches in difference packages. Assured result-no

side effect, no dieting, no medicine.

2. Convert your body in perfect shape”









any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Reduce 1-

50 kg weight/ 1-50 inches in difference packages. Assured result-no side effect, no dieting, no

medicine”, and “Convert your body in perfect shape”, were not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence, and with treatment efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. The

claims exploit the consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread



COMPANY: Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd

PRODUCT: Godrej Air Conditioner

Claim Objected To:

“India's Most Heavy-Duty AC Range”





stated in their response that the term `HeavyDuty’ is a marketing term coined by the brand to

communicate the performance of the product, for which a comparative test was conducted with

two major brands in the AC industry (Daikin and Voltas), to measure the key performance

parameters of Godrej AC. The results indicated that Godrej AC range was better on most of the

parameters of these two significant players in the industry.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided catalogues of Daikin and Voltas, and performance

parameter comparison report. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of

ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well

as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the

comparison test was done against only two products - a market leader and a technical leader. The

basis of comparison was not from any technical test reports but was from the technical

specifications mentioned in catalogues/technical literature of the respective products. The

parameters (Out Door Unit weight and In Door Unit weight with their dimensions, Hurricane

Mode, Hydrophobic Condenser, i-Sense, Grill on outdoor unit) identified for comparison by the

advertiser appeared to be irrelevant for the terminology “heavy duty”. The CCC considered two

possibly admissible parameters namely, Cooling Capacity and Air Throw Cfm, for which the

unit was not superior to the other two. In fact, Voltas was superior on cooling capacity and equal

on air throw. Consumer perception of being heavy-duty like long-lasting, works under extreme

external temperatures/humidity, etc., are not recognized by the advertiser. Based on this data, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “India's Most Heavy-Duty AC Range”, was inadequately

substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim is likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Fashion Dot Tailoring Technologies

PRODUCT: Hitech Fashions

Claim Objected To:

“India's No.1 Laser Tailoring Company”








“India's No.1 Laser Tailoring Company”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s institute and other tailoring institutes in India to prove that it is in

leadership position (No.1) than the rest in providing courses in tailoring, or through a third party

validation. The source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is


minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


COMPANY: Lotus Herbals Ltd

PRODUCT: Lotus Safe Sun Block SPF 40

Claim Objected To:

“SPF 40”






The CCC viewed the magazine advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint,

and in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the

advertisement claim and the pack claim in the advertisement, “SPF 40”, was not substantiated

with evidence of the claimed SPF values. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and likely to

lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement

contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Manipal Hospital

Claims Objected To:

“India's most trusted healthcare network”

“India's most trusted hospital network”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their response in addressing the objections raised in



stated in their response that their Hospital is first in India to be awarded accreditation by the

AAHRPP for ethical standards in clinical research activities, and it is also the most patient

recommended hospital in India by consumer survey. As claim support data, the advertiser

provided a Presentation showing a press article coverage on `Manipal Hospital most patient-

friendly’, and awards and recognitions achieved by the advertiser’s hospital, and consumer data

– Voted by consumers Trusted Hospital 2017 published in Reader’s Digest.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

observed that the data of Reader’s Digest showed that the advertiser’s hospital (Bangalore)

featured in the list of `Top 20 most Trusted Hospitals in India’ in 2017. This data was not

considered relevant for the advertiser’s hospital claiming to be the most trusted hospital or

healthcare `network’ in India. Based on this observation, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“India's most trusted healthcare network” and “India's most trusted hospital network”, were not

substantiated, and are misleading by ambiguity. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread



COMPANY: Medispa Laser & Cosmetic Surgery Center

Claim Objected To:

“Reliable and trusted by more than 100 doctors for their own hair transplant.”





stated in their response that the claim made is factual as it is based on the fact that almost 200

Doctors have undergone hair transplants at their centre. As per the advertiser, there is no

requirement to categorize and classify patients under different categories, and hence no third

party can certify this information.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided an excel sheet giving the names of the doctors,

their contact numbers and medical council registration numbers, a copy of certificate for being

registered under Allopathy clinic, and a Presentation showing photographs of ten doctors with

their names, surgery date, and their images of before and after the hair transplant (to be treated

as confidential).

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response with the

supporting data. The CCC observed that the data provided of ten doctors was not adequate to

conclusively prove the claim. The Advertiser did not provide evidence in the form of actual

testimonies from doctors who had availed their treatment. The advertiser did not submit any third

party validation of their confidential data. Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Reliable and trusted by more than 100 doctors for their own hair transplant”, was inadequately

substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd

PRODUCT: LG Durables

Claim Objected To:

“India's No.1”

CCC RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD



Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the

print advertisement and considered the

advertiser’s response. The advertiser had stated in their response that the claim is based on the

Market Survey conducted by GFK Nielsen in June 2018, which indicated that LGEIL was No. 1

in the category of Refrigerator in the country. As the data being confidential in nature, the

advertiser refused to share this GFK report. However, they provided a table in their response

quoting the value market share for May and June 2018, as per the GFK report. The CCC observed

that the results showed that LG ranked number 1 with 34.4% (in May) and 35.4% (in June) which

was higher than around 30.4% (May) and 30.5% (June) for the nearest competitor.

In the absence of any data contrary to the above, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's

No.1”, was substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Kose Corporation India Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Spawake Moisture Fresh BB Cream

Claim Objected To:

“SPF 25/PA++”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. As claim support data,

the advertiser provided manufacturing licence of the product, and copy of test report for SPA and

PA values of the product. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the

advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the product was tested for sunscreen efficacy.

Based on this report, the CCC concluded that the claim, “SPF 25/PA++” was substantiated with

evidence of the claimed SPF values. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pan India Paryatan Ltd

PRODUCT: Water Kingdom

Claim Objected To:

“Asia's largest theme water park”








“Asia's largest theme water park”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of

the advertiser’s water park and other similar water parks in Asia, to prove that they are larger

than the rest, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The

claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The


UPHELD.

COMPANY: Unique Permanent Hair Loss Cream

Claims Objected To:

1. By applying this cream twice on any parts, any doctors, vaid, hakim or hair expert in the

world will not be able to grow hair again on that part. 2. Get rid of hair permanently through

cream


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (H T Media Ltd) for their assistance in providing the

contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted

that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media prior to the due

date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of response

from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“By applying this cream twice on any parts, any doctors, vaid, hakim or hair expert in the world

will not be able to grow hair again on that part”, and “Get rid of hair permanently through cream”,

accompanied by visuals were not substantiated with product efficacy data, and are misleading by

gross exaggeration. The claims are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.


COMPANY: HNN Institute of Practical Journalism

Claims Objected To:

1. Uttarakhand’s No. 1 and country’s upcoming news channel.

(Source for claim not mentioned.)

2. Guaranteed Job.






The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence

of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the voice over claim,

“Uttarakhand’s No. 1 and country’s upcoming news channel”, was not substantiated with

viewership data of the advertiser’s channel against all other competitive channels, to prove that

it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication.

The source for the claim was not indicated in the TVC.

Voice over claim, “Guaranteed Job” was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of the

students who were provided with jobs after the completion of their training programs. The claims

are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC

advertisement contravened the Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Cellcom Mobile Training Institute

Claim Objected To:

“Odisha and Bhubaneshwar’s No. 1 mobile training institute”

(Source of claim not mentioned.)







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the voice over claim,

“Odisha and Bhubaneshwar’s No. 1 mobile training institute” was not substantiated with any

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar mobile training institutes

to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest in Odisha and Bhubaneshwar, in

providing training on mobile phone, computer, networking and digital camera, or through a third

party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The source for the claim was also not

indicated in the TVC. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Major Kalshi Classes

Claim Objected To:

“India’s No. 1 Defence Training Institute”







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s

No. 1 Defence Training Institute”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of

the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1)

than the rest in India in providing training/courses in defence services, or through a third party

validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The source for the claim was also not

indicated in the TVC. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Progams as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dashmesh Academy

Claims Objected To:

1. The Most Trusted brand

2. The Best Results and maximum no. of selections in the toughest of Exams in India- IAS CAT

NABARD RBI

3. The Most Experienced Institute in North India

4. Best Team of Expert







the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“The Most Trusted brand”, “The Best Results and maximum no. of selections in the toughest of

Exams in India- IAS CAT NABARD RBI”, “The Most Experienced Institute in North India”,

and “Best Team of Expert”, were not substantiated with any market survey data, or any

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes, or through a

third party validation. The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The source for the claim, “The

Most Trusted Brand”, was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is likely to lead to grave

or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened the

Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2,

I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Aaroyam Ayurvedic Panchkarma Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Claims Objected To:

1. Complete solution to obesity

2. Till now 30,000 patients benefited.

3. Easy to reduce up to 5-55 kg weight

4. Reduce weight up to 10-15 kg in one month through obesity killer kit.

Objections-

1. Visuals of testimonials are misleading and not representative of generally achievable

results.

2. Name of the product implies cure for Obesity








“Complete solution to obesity”, “Easy to reduce up to 5-55 kg weight”, and “Reduce weight up

to 10-15 kg in one month through obesity killer kit”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence

of product efficacy. The name of the product “Obesity Killer Kit” implies cure for obesity, which

is misleading. Specific to the claims implying the product used in the kit providing cure for

obesity, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies

Act (item 38 under DMR schedule). The claims are misleading by gross exaggeration and

exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. Claim, “Till now 30,000 patients benefited”, was not

substantiated with supporting evidence of the patients who were benefitted by the use of the

product, or through a third party validation, and is misleading. Efficacy being depicted via

images of before and after the treatment are misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters


COMPANY: Astha Clinic

Claims Objected To:

“Effective formula of herbal & homeopathic medicines, with regular use and diet kaya dosh is

removed and start producing melanin pigment in body naturally, which is helpful to cure white

spots”

“Thousands of patients benefitted Since 20 years in India-abroad”

Objection-

The before and after visuals in the advertisement appears to be misleading.






The CCC viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser did not provide any

details of the treatment procedure nor any data for claimed treatment based on rigorous trial on

statistically significant number of patients. No details regarding the medicines, their approval

status by the regulatory authorities was provided by the advertiser. The CCC concluded that the

claims (in Hindi) as translated in English, “Effective formula of herbal & homeopathic medicines,

with regular use and diet kaya dosh is removed and start producing melanin pigment in body

naturally, which is helpful to cure white spots”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence.

Specific to the claims implying cure for White Spots with the use of the product, the

advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 33

under DMR schedule). The claims are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the

consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers.

Claim, “Thousands of patients benefitted Since 20 years in India-abroad” was not substantiated

with supporting evidence of the patients who were benefitted by the treatment, or through a third

party validation, and is misleading. Efficacy being depicted via images of before and after the

treatment are misleading. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the

ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Herbal Health Care

Claims Objected To:

1. Permanent cure for Psoriasis

2. Permanent Solutions provided for diabetes and joint pain.








“Permanent cure for Psoriasis” and “Permanent Solutions provided for diabetes and joint pain”,

were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims implying cure

for diabetes with the use of Herbal medicine, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it

violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 9 under DMR schedule). The claims are

misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to


contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Livo Universal

PRODUCT: Immuno 1

Claim Objected To:

“You will never get ill”








“You will never get ill”, implying that the product being beneficial for all types of illnesses, was

not substantiated with product efficacy data. The claim is misleading by gross exaggeration and

exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread



COMPANY: Masters Homeopathy

Claims Objected To:

1. In homeo there are medicines available for controlling HIV

2. All the problems related to infertility are removed and the couples get success by conceiving.

3. The best medicines which can control Hepatitis B and C

4. After homeo treatment herpes will not be seen again

5. Homeo Treatment gives permanent solution for all pains related to neck and shoulder








“In homeo there are medicines available for controlling HIV”, “All the problems related to

infertility are removed and the couples get success by conceiving”, “The best medicines which

can control Hepatitis B and C”, “After homeo treatment herpes will not be seen again”, and

“Homeo Treatment gives permanent solution for all pains related to neck and shoulder”, were

not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims implying cure for

infertility with the use of their medicines, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated

The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 48 under DMR schedule). The claims are misleading

by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to


Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr Mukherjee Fertility Centre

Claim Objected To:

“Successful treatment of infertility through panchkarma and herbal medicine”








“Successful treatment of infertility through panchkarma and herbal medicine”, was not

substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims implying cure for

infertility with the use of the herbal medicine, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it

violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (item 48 under DMR schedule). The claim is

misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to


contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Sri Appollo Siddha Ayurveda Natural Unani Hospital

Claims Objected To:

1. Complete cure of Asthma problems by shree apollahvaidyashala (siddha-Ayurveda)

2. Those who did not get benefit from treatments in various places for diseases like Asthma,

Sinusitis, Joint pain, Psoriasis, after getting treatment from us, are not taking any

medicine And tablets, are living healthily and appreciating us








“Complete cure of Asthma problems by shree apollahvaidyashala (siddhaAyurveda)”, was not

substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Specific to the claims of cure for Asthma with

the use of their medicine, the advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs &

Magic Remedies Act, Rule 6. Claim – “Those who did not get benefit from treatments in various

places for diseases like Asthma, Sinusitis, Joint pain, Psoriasis, after getting treatment from

us, are not taking any medicine And tablets, are living healthily and appreciating us”, was not

substantiated with supporting evidence of the patients who have benefitted by their treatment.

The claims are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of of

knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic

PRODUCT: Dr. Batra’s Geno Homeopathy

Complaint:

I am forwarding an ad which appeared in a newspaper which is blatantly false stating that

homeopathy can predict and prevent genetic disorders.

1. Gene targeted homeopathy- This means that the drug targets the gene. There is no such

evidence in either homeopathy or even in other forms of medicine scientifically proven to

target a gene. Anti cancer therapy has molecules which target or block the proteins formed

due to defective genes but not the genes. gene editing technology may be able to do this in

future definitely not homeopathy

2. The statement that they would combine the goodness of homeopathy with science of genetics

is acceptable wherein the genetics identifies the defect

3. There is no available scientific information which shows how homeopathy can predict and

prevent genetic diseases several years before they appear. They should be able to substantiate

this statement.

4. Most of the diseases they have listed are not genetic disorders nor have the genomic signatures

of these diseases worked out yet. They are polygeneic and some are epigenetic than genetic.

Diseases of women is not a single disease, similarly several others are general diseases for

which we still dont have the exact genetic or epigenetic markers for any treatment to target.

They are using jargon to mislead the public. eg for weight management, stress management

are not genetic disorders and even if they have some genetic polymorphisms we still dont

know for sure.





ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. Feedback was

sought from a technical expert on the merits of the complaint. The CCC noted that no response

was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement, and observed that Homoeopathy is an ancient medicine, and not

a modern medicine. It is based on the Principle of “Similia Similibus Curanter” (any drug capable

of producing detrimental symptoms in a healthy individual will relieve similar symptoms

occurring as an expression of disease). Thus the Gene based treatment cannot be termed as pure

Homoeopathy, where the very Principle of the “pathy” is not followed. Diagnosis and treatment

in homoeopathy is based on history of the patient and signs and symptoms. Out of these, history

forms very important tool for prescription of medicine, and not the genetic analysis. It is not

possible to give homoeopathic treatment unless and until the symptoms appear. Geno

Homoeopathy is not recognized branch in India. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded

that the claims, “Gene-targeted homeopathic therapy”, “Predict and prevent genetic diseases 15-

20 years before they show up in other tests safely in Homeopathy”, and “With Geno Homeopathy,

we combine the goodness of Homeopathy with the science of genetics to enhance treatment

results”, were not substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration. The claims exploit

consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in

the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI



Claim Objected To:

“The Homeopathy tablets removes/ get rid of diseases forever”

Objection-

Visuals imply increase in stature of the child.







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The

Homeopathy tablets removes/ get rid of diseases forever”, was not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence. Specific to the visual showing increase in stature of a minor, implying height

increase with the use of their Homeopathy tablets, the TVC is in Breach of the law as it violated

The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (Item No.47 under DMR Schedule). The claim is misleading

by gross exaggeration and exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters



PRODUCT: Dr. Batra’s Geno Homeopathy

Complaint:

Advertising Geno-Homeopathy

#GenoHomeopathy ?? Really !!

There is no such science as Geno-Homeopathy

Pseudo version of an already #PseudoScience =#Quackery.

Misleading gullible people. Strange bedfellows -#Homeopathy & #Genetics.

Hahnemann system developed in 1796 has been given up even in Germany. It has been stopped

even by National Health Services - UK

Where are the Indian govt regulations regarding spread of false medical treatment assumptions.

Such medical treatments which are not proven by Science are banned under Drug & Magical

Remedies Act – 1954





ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. Feedback was

sought from a technical expert on the merits of the complaint. The CCC noted that no response

was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement, and observed that Homoeopathy is an ancient medicine, and not

a modern medicine. It is based on the Principle of “Similia Similibus Curanter” (any drug capable

of producing detrimental symptoms in a healthy individual will relieve similar symptoms

occurring as an expression of disease). Thus the Gene based treatment cannot be termed as pure

Homoeopathy, where the very Principle of the “pathy” is not followed. Diagnosis and treatment

in homoeopathy is based on history of the patient and signs and symptoms. Out of these, history

forms very important tool for prescription of medicine, and not the genetic analysis. It is not

possible to give homoeopathic treatment unless and until the symptoms appear. Geno

Homoeopathy is not recognized branch in India. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “Geno Homeopathy – a break through treatment based on Gene Analysis for

ailments across all age groups”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The

claim exploits consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread



COMPANY: Huxley’s Company (India)

PRODUCT: Wintogeno Pain Reliever

Claims Objected to:

1. Most reliable and powerful pain reliever since 1899

2. No harmful ingredients used

3. Apply Wintogeno two times a day and take Wintogeno joint pain tablet twice in a day

after meals and experience the double relief.

Complaint

Our objections:

1. With reference to claim 1 and 2, please substantiate with claim support data. The claim

support data should not be based on internal studies or studies commissioned by Huxley

and Company (India).

2. Is the claimed effect delivered only on using both the ointment and the tablet? If yes,

will it not have side effects? If it does, then claim 2 is misleading. According to us, the

advertisement contravenes the ASCI Codes of Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4. Action to be

taken: We propose the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd) for their assistance in

providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the grievances of the complainant to

the advertiser. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the

concerned media prior to the due date. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence

of response from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “Most reliable and powerful pain reliever since 1899”, was not substantiated with

any verifiable comparative data on year basis since 1899 of the advertiser’s product and other

competitive pain reliever products in the same category for the claimed benefit, or through a third

party validation. Claim, “No harmful ingredients used”, was not substantiated with evidence of

approval from regulatory authorities for the product. Claim, “Apply Wintogeno two times a day

and take Wintogeno joint pain tablet twice in a day after meals and experience the double relief”,

was not substantiated with any scientific or technical data. The claims are misleading by

exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The

complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of Management & Research

Claim Objected To: “100% Placement

support”







the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the

advertiser may be providing placement support to their students, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “Placement support” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is

misleading by implication and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the


Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Asian Business School

Claim Objected To:

“Highest package offered 15 lac/p.a.”





stated in their response that the claim is made on the basis of the job offer provided by

Amazon.com to their students during their recruitment season. However, none of the students

were selected during the interview process. Advertiser provided a copy of the Amazon offer

letter giving the job description and remuneration to be offered for the position of ̀ Team Manager

– Customer Service’ at CTC 15.25. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement examining

the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC noted that Amazon had only

provided an offer subject to pre-requisites being met by the students. While the advertiser asserted

that none of the student could crack the interview process, the advertiser did not share the details

of the shortlisted provided to Amazonas per their pre-requisites. The CCC concluded that the

claim, “Highest package offered 15 lac/p.a”, was misleading by ambiguity and implication that

the said offer was achievable by their students. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines

for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapter I.4 of the ASCI


COMPANY: Brij Education Trust-BIMT Gurgaon


Assurance”








“100% Placement Assurance”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and is misleading by

implication and exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The


COMPANY: Deen Dayal Upadhya Institute of Management & Higher Studies

Claim Objected To:

“First Placement Lab in India for 100% Placement”








“First Placement Lab in India”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that they are the first in India than the

rest for providing placements to their students, or through a third party validation. Claim of

“100% 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. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The print advertisement contravened

Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4

and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Bharitya Vidya Bhavan’s Centre for Communication & Management (BCCM)

Claim Objected To:

“100% placement”








“100% 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,






COMPANY: Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering & Technology

Claim Objected To:

“100% placement for eligible candidates every year in companies of global repute”








“100% placement for eligible candidates every year in companies of global repute”, was not

substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of students who have been

placed through their Institute every year, with contact details of students for verification,






COMPANY: Accurate Group of Institutions

PRODUCT: Accurate Inst. of Mgt & Technology

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement track record”








“100% Placement track record”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as

detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute every year, contact details

of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students,

nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration

and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The print

advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs

as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: INDUS University

PRODUCT: Indus Institute of Management Studies

Claim Objected To:

“Track Record Of 100% Quality Placements”








“Track Record Of 100% Quality Placements”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting

data such as detailed list of students who have been placed through their Institute every year,

contact details of students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by

the students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational


was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Jamia Hamdard


Assistance”








advertiser may be providing placement assistance to their students, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim

is misleading by implication and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the



UPHELD.

COMPANY: Accurate Group of Institutions

PRODUCT: Accurate Institute of Advanced Management

Claim Objected To:

100% Placement Assistance








advertiser may be providing placement assistance to their students, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim




UPHELD.

COMPANY: Science & Technology Entrepreneurs Park-HBTI, Kanpur

Claim Objected To: “100% Placement Support”








advertiser may be providing placement support to their students, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “Placement Support” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is




UPHELD.

COMPANY: Moti Lal Nehru School of Management

Claim Objected To: “100% Placement Assistance”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response post the due date. The

advertiser had stated in their response that their institute provides help to their students in career

counseling, preparing them for interviews, and holding discussions with them for appropriate job

leads that are in line with their skill level.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and

the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the advertiser may be

providing placement assistance to their students, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for

“Placement Assistance” claim for the courses being offered. The use of “100%” as a descriptor

in the claim is misleading by implication and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Guidelines for

Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


COMPANY: R.L. Institute of Management Studies

Claim Objected To:

“Ensures 100% Placement Assistance”.




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. Advertiser stated in

their response that they give placement assistance to conduct placement drive in their campus

and provide opportunities for their students to participate in interviews and to facilitate relevant

job placement in their respective domain. Advertiser in their response provided summary table

showing Placement assistant details for 2018 batch, giving student’s name, their roll numbers,

and companies in which the students were placed.




“Ensures Placement Assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is




UPHELD.

COMPANY: OJB Herbals Pvt. Ltd.

PRODUCT: Oshea Herbals UV Shield Sunscreen Gel

Claims:

1. Made with ext. of porphyra umbilicalis a natural U.V. protection factor, vertiver, aloevera,

carrot, cucumber & chamomile is ideal for specially in hot and humid weather.

2. Protect you from all forms of sun damage like tanning, sun spots and premature ageing

3. Lightens skin by regulating its skin darkening pigments.

Objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 to 3 using claim support data. The claim support data should

not be internal or based on studies commissioned by OJB Herbals Pvt. Ltd.

2. Is the amount of ingredients as stated in claim 1 significant to make an impact on the

performance of the product as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the benefits of the

formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients provided?

3. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness

of each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients

appear to have symbolic presence in the product?

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. Action to

be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.







complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser did not

provide copy of Product approval license / product label, and Product composition details. The

CCC concluded that the claim, “Made with ext. of porphyra umbilicalis a natural U.V. protection

factor, vertiver, aloevera, carrot, cucumber & chamomile is ideal for specially in hot and humid

weather”, was not substantiated with supporting data showing presence of these ingredients in

the product. Claims, “Protect you from all forms of sun damage like tanning, sun spots and

premature ageing”, and “Lightens skin by regulating its skin darkening pigments”, were not

substantiated with any technical data, scientific rationale or evidence of product efficacy, and are

misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI

Code. The complaint was accordingly UPHELD.

COMPANY: Lupin Ltd

PRODUCT: Corcal

Claims Objected to:

1. Made from 100% natural coral grains

2. Contains more than 70 trace minerals like gold, silver, zinc, iron

and selenium 3. Coral helps strengthen bones and maintains

healthy hair, skin and nails

Complaint:

Objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 and 3 with claim support data. The claim support data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Lupin Ltd.

2. Reference to claim 1; is the amount of ingredients significant to make an impact on the

performance of the product as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the benefits of

the formulation attributable to the chemical ingredients provided?

3. Reference to claim 1; can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form

has the effectiveness of each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the

advertisement since the ingredients appear to have symbolic presence in the product?

4. Reference to claim 3; these are the benefits of coral. Mentioning them implies that the

product would also impart these benefits. This needs to be substantiated with

independent data.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code. Action to

be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn





ASCI Secretariat which they availed and submitted their written response. The advertiser had

stated in their response that the Corcal Bone & Beauty is a health supplement meant to

supplement normal nutrition of an individual. The product has Coral grains as the key ingredient

which is capable of helping the consumer retain the inherent normalness of bone, hair, skin and

nails. Advertiser provided a soft copy of the product label along with product composition

details, and product approval license. For the claims objected to, the advertiser submitted a copy

of certificate of Composition from Coral LLC that the raw Coral supplied comes from the sea

sources and is composed of 100% fossilized Coral, a certificate of Analysis of the Product, and

references from Ayurvedic Texts which have direct mention of benefits of corals. The claim

support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print

advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert

presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertiser had substantiated the product

composition as well as presence of >70 trace minerals. The benefits of Coral are well documented

and by virtue of the product being made from 100% natural coral grains and having Calcium

Carbonate, the product is bound to give the claimed benefits. Based on the advertiser’s response

with the supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Made from 100% natural

coral grains”, “Contains more than 70 trace minerals like gold, silver, zinc, iron and selenium”,

and “Coral helps strengthen bones and maintains healthy hair, skin and nails”, were substantiated.

The CCC also observed that the VCO complainant appears to use a standard template to register

multiple complaints regardless of the product category type and demands specific support data

for all claims across all advertisements without providing reason why the claim cannot be

substantiated. The CCC noted that objection being raised by the complainant that “can the

advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness of each and all

of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients appear to have

symbolic presence in the product” was not valid as the product had substantial quantity of

Calcium Carbonate. Complainant’s demand that Benefits of Coral be substantiated with

independent data was also not valid since the benefits of the ingredient is already well

documented in scientific literature. The CCC recommended that the ASCI Secretariat should ask

the VCO complainant to provide clear basis for objection to claims in their complaints. And

clarified that the technical expert of the CCC will decide on the origin of the basis of the claim

support data. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Marico Ltd

PRODUCT: Saffola Gold Oil

Claim objected to:

“The oil has the strength / power of antioxidants” “Mera Saffola Gold de 3 antioxidants ki shakti.

Aur aap ka oil ?”

Objections:

The advertiser misrepresents its product to be beneficial by indirectly denigrating other oils as

not having health benefits. What is meant by 3 oxidants? What benefit can the anti oxidant/s

provide to the user on consumption of the oil? Will the user derive any strength by consuming

products cooked or fried in the oil? The ad implies that the use of oil gives the consumer the

strength and befits of oil consumption, which appears to be totally false and misleading. The

advertisement appeared on the bus in Girgaum, Mumbai.




Secretariat which they availed and subsequently submitted their written response. The advertiser

stated in their response that Saffola Gold, on account of its composition (i.e. 80% refined rice

bran oil and 20% safflower seed oil) contains following natural antioxidants – Oryzanol, Alpha-

Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Tocotrienols, Phytosterols, and Squalene. These anti-oxidants form

an integral part of the Saffola Gold formulation and composition and hence the advantage of

these anti-oxidants can be derived when oil is consumed or food prepared in the oil is consumed.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided relevant published articles and journal references

on Rice Bran Oil containing above antioxidants, Copy of the product label, various antioxidants

and nutrients in Saffola Gold, extract of Richard O’ Brien textbook, and Scientific literature on

the benefits derived from each such antioxidant. The CCC viewed the Ad – hoarding (displayed

on a Bus) and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert

presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the antioxidants (Oryzanol, Tocopherols,

Tocotrienols) are natural antioxidants which are present in Rice bran oil that forms 80% in the

Saffola Gold, and the product also has Phytosterols and squalene. The reference to TBHQ, Citric

acid and Polydimethyl Siloxilane which are permitted anti-oxidants that contribute to extend the

shelf life of refined vegetable oils was not considered relevant in the context of the advertisement

as the advertisement implied physiological benefit due to presence of heart shaped images. It was

very ambiguous which three antioxidants were being referred to in the advertisement.

The CCC noted that while the product may have the natural anti-oxidants, a vegetable oil is not

consumed as such. It is used as a cooking medium and during this process a number of changes

take place with respect to its ingredients. It was not adequately substantiated if a consumer would

derive the “power” of the three antioxidants when used as a cooking medium and post

consumption of fried food. Moreover, the fatty acid and triglyceride composition also plays an

important role in managing lifestyle diseases . Several research studies are in progress in

understanding role of cooking oils in prevention of lifestyle diseases. No definite conclusions

have been arrived at so far. Experts are recommending to change cooking oils frequently and get

the maximum benefits from all tyes of oils rather than sticking to only one type of oil whereas

the advertisement is suggesting to consumers to switch over to one brand due to the presence of

three anti-oxidants. The CCC concluded that the claim, “Mera Saffola Gold de 3 antioxidants ki

Shakti”, was misleading by ambiguity and implication. The Ad – Hoarding contravened


The CCC did not consider the advertisement to be denigrating to competition. This complaint

was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Oziva- Nutritional Meal Replacement Shake for women

Claims objected to:

“Meal Replacement Shake”

“Enriched with Ayurvedic Herbs and added Vitamins & Minerals for Weight Loss & Improved

Metabolism” “Delicious Shake that saves 500-700 calories vs. a Regular Meal”

Objections: 1. Reference to claims 1 - 3 please substantiate with claim support data. The data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Oziva. 2. Reference to claim 1; is

the amount of the ayuredic herbs and added vitamins and minerals significant to make an impact

on the performance of the product as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the benefits of the

formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients provided? 3.Reference to claim1; can the

advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness of each and all

of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients appear to have

symbolic presence in the product? 4. Reference to claim 1; body weight depends on several

factors like metabolism, genes, and lifestyle then how can the same outcome be obtained for

everyone? Please substantiate. 5. Reference to claim 2; as per ASCI guidelines of advertising of

Food and Beverages,â€Ãdvertisements for food or beverages unless nutritionally designed as

such should not be promoted or portrayed as a meal replacementâ€™. Advertisements should not

disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options, such as fresh fruits and vegetables

that accepted dietary opinion recommends should form part of the normal dietâ€™. According

to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code and the provisions of

Guidelines of advertising of food and beverages. Action to be taken: We propose that the

advertisement should be immediately withdrawn. In order to process the complaint further we

have highlighted three most important claims from the six claims listed by ASCI.

1. Meal Replacement Shake

2. Enriched with Ayurvedic Herbs and added Vitamins & Minerals for Weight Loss &

Improved Metabolism.

3. Delicious Shake that saves 500-700 calories vs. a Regular Meal





ASCI Secretariat which they availed via telecon, and submitted their written response.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided Soft copy of product Label, Website article on

Oziva nutritional meal shake, published research papers and articles on weight control by high

protein meal replacement, and high protein diet in liquid form in weight management, published

research papers on the role of ayurvedic herbs – Tulsi and Shatavari, and a detailed research paper

on Garcinia Cambogia for controlling fat metabolism. The claim support data was reviewed by

the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the

Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting. The

CCC observed that the advertiser did not submit a copy of the manufacturing licence for the

product category. The product appears more like a food for Special Dietary Use under the Food

Safety standards (Health Supplements, Nutraceuticals, Food for special Medical Purpose,

Functional Food and Novel Food) Regulation 2016. There was no affirmation whether the said

product was made in compliance with and as per the standards laid down as per FSSAI. The

advertiser asserts that Nutritional meal shake for women is a nutrient rich, portion controlled

meal replacer which provides only 123 calories. However, this was not considered to be

appropriate since it did not meet the criteria laid down by FSSAI for Food for replacement of one

or more meals. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide comparative data comparing

against per serve recommended for Oziva nutritional meal shake versus regular meal, particularly

for a woman as mentioned in the advertisement. No evidence was provided by the advertiser

regarding presence of Ayurvedic herbs, vitamins and minerals in the product and how these

ingredients as part of the product have an impact on weight loss or metabolism. The CCC did not

consider extrapolation of studies done on different products as cited in various literature

references provided by the advertiser to be extrapolable to the advertised product. The CCC

concluded that claims “Meal Replacement Shake”, “Enriched with Ayurvedic Herbs and added

Vitamins & Minerals for Weight Loss & Improved Metabolism”, “Delicious Shake that saves

500-700 calories vs. a Regular Meal” were not adequately substantiated. The claims are

misleading by ambiguity. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the

ASCI Code and Clauses 2 and 7 of Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages. The


COMPANY: Siddhant Lime Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Siddhant Pure Drinking Lime

Claims Objected To:

“Antibiotic, antipyretic, antifungal, anti-inflammatory”

“Consuming 3-4 drops a day can let you get rid of any kind of pain”

CCC RECOMMENDATION: Exparte





The CCC viewed the TVC and observed that the advertiser did not submit any product specific

details such as composition / licence / pack artwork or samples and FSSAI approval for the

product. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Antibiotic,

antipyretic, antifungal, anti-inflammatory”, and “Consuming 3-4 drops a day can let you get rid

of any kind of pain”, were not substantiated with any scientific rationale or evidence of product

efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the


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:-

Sr. No

Advertiser (Brand Product)

/

Claim/S Objected To Remarks (Clause Applicable)

1. Mahashi

Ayurveda-

Diab 99.9

Most effective medicine on diabetes till now.

100 percent natural diabetes killer.

Objection:

The above claim imply cure for

Diabetes.

Diabetes -Item no- 9 DMR Schedule

COMPANY: Times Network Ltd (Times Now)

Complaint:

On Air Promotion of Times Now on 12th Jul'18, claiming number one channel in BARC Week

27'18.

On 12th Jul'18, Times Now has claimed no. 1 channel in BARC week 27'18. Times Now referred

Target Group NCCS AB 22-50. According to BARC guidelines, Broadcasters cannot used sliced

TG like NCCS AB 22-50. BARC guidelines recommended NCCS 2+, NCCS 15 or NCCS 22+.






had stated in their response that they have complied with BARC recommendation of using

permissible TG NCCS AB 22-50 in their communication, and have specified the upper age limit

of the TG.

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TV

– promo and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert

presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the BARC source “NCCB AB 2-50 [All India

1 Mn+ Wk 23-27’18] quoted in the TV - promo established that their leadership claim is based

on four weeks data. As the target group NCCB AB 22-50 can be directly queried from the

BARC system, the CCC did not consider such reference to be objectionable in the context of the

advertisement. However, the CCC concluded that the TV – promo was misleading by omission

to mention that their channel is No.1 in English News genre. The TV – promo contravened

Chapter I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: ARG Outlier Media (Republic TV)

Complaint:

A. Kindly, refer to the attached e-mailer published and circulated by Republic TV (RTV)

through advertiser -- BestMediaInfo.com.

The e-mailer is an advertisement wherein RTV has claimed No. 1 position for continuous 60

weeks on the basis of source line being : BARC|Market-India 1Mn+|Period:Wk 23’18 to Wk

26’18|Target Group:NCCS AB M22+|Time: 2100-2300|Days: Workdays

B. Our complaint:

1. RTV has used only 2 hours of BARC data to stake No.1 position, which is impermissible

and in violation of BARC regulations;

2. RTV has claimed 53.1% market share based on faulty and impermissible 2 hours of

BARC data, which is again a violation of BARC regulations;

3. RTV has not provided any substantiation and/or proof to its claim of 60 weeks of

continuous leadership position;

4. RTV has disparaged our channel ‘Times Now’ by publishing an incorrect, faulty and

fraudulent market share of 23.2% of our channel (the correct share is 38.7%);

5. RTV has sliced BARC data to achieve its artificial and fraudulent market share and

reduced market share of other channels;

6. RTV has disparaged all channels operational in India, by claiming to create ‘A New

Record In Indian Television’ based on either impermissible and incorrect BARC data and/or

non-substantiation, thereof.

The correct BARC data for weeks 23-26’18:

Channels Avg TVTs Share

Times Now 491 38.7%

RTV 456 35.9%

CNN News18 92 7.3%

India Today 137 10.8%

NDTV 24x7 68 5.4%

News X 25 2.0%

Genre 1,270 100.0%

Source: BARC| Market: All India 1Mn+| TG:NCCS AB 22+ Males | Period: Wk 23-26'18|

C. Lately, RTV has filed complaints against our channel on trivial grounds; whereas, as

said, right from 1st week of its operation, RTV started making No.1 and leadership claims.

And, thereafter, till date, week on week, by using on 2 hours of BARC data i.e. 2100-2300

hours, it is now claiming to hold No.1 position for continuous 60 weeks, and claims to have

created some sort of history in Indian Television.

D. Anyway, this is an open and shut case, like RTV’s previous advertisements, which is

attached here as Annexure “A”, for your information, assistance and necessary actions under

advertising regulations. Importantly, we urge the respected Council to send a stern warning to

RTV for restraining it from further dilution of BARC regulations and the regime of self-

regulation.





ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The claim

support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TV – promo

and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at

the meeting. Objection 1 - RTV has used only 2 hours of BARC data to stake No.1 position,

which is impermissible and in violation of BARC regulations –

Advertiser stated that in accordance with BARC Single Event reporting guidelines, Republic TV

has used two hours viewership data (2100-2300) which is super prime time property of the

channel runs on weekdays. The time band 2100-2300 on Republic TV has 30% viewership

contribution to the total.

The CCC observed that Republic TV have taken advantage of the BARC Rules for reporting of

Single Events which allows leadership claims based on a single event of a duration exceeding 30

minutes. The time band 2100-2300 is dedicated to a single, extended show anchored by Arnab

Goswami: On the debate. However, the claim “Unbeaten No. 1” is misleading by omission of

disclaimers, and contravened Chapter 1.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

Objection 2 - RTV has claimed 53.1% market share based on faulty and impermissible 2 hours

of BARC data, which is again a violation of BARC regulations –

In response to this objection, the advertiser stated that this market share is claimed in defined

super prime time band which is based on average of Wk. 23'18 to WK. 26'18.

The CCC observed that while the 2-hour band under the ‘Single Events’ reporting rules was not

objectionable, as it being permissible under BARC rules, the claim of “53.1% market share” was

in violation of Section B (i) of BARC guidelines, which states “Ratings may only be expressed

as Rating (000)s, use of Rating % not permitted”. The Ad – mailer contravened Chapter I.3 of

the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

Objection 3 - RTV has not provided any substantiation and/or proof to its claim of 60 weeks of

continuous leadership position –

Advertiser stated that though the mailer did not display the 60 week data the fact is Republic TV

has maintained over 50% share for the 2100-2300, weekday slot.

The CCC observed that the advertiser’s response quoted a table showing market shares for the

period wk 19, ’17 to wk 26,’18. Reporting shares is in principle disallowed by the BARC

Guidelines. However, the shares are presumably based on Ratings (000s) which have been

computed as percentage numbers. While the Ratings (000s) was acceptable, however, using

percentages for indicating rating was is in violation of BARC Guidelines. The Ad – mailer

contravened Chapter I.3 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

Objection 4. - RTV has disparaged the channel ‘Times Now’ by publishing an incorrect, faulty

and fraudulent market share of 23.2% of our channel (the correct share is 38.7%) –

In response to this objection, the advertiser stated that there is no misrepresentation, quite

contrary to the assertion in the Complaint.The CCC observed that the complaint was not valid.

If the advertiser is in principle not permitted to report Ratings as percentages, neither can the

complainant use percentages. The complainant has calculated calculating numbers based on 24-

hour reporting for the period under dispute while the advertiser has focused on a 2-hour time

band. Based on this observation, this complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Objection 5 - RTV has sliced BARC data to achieve its artificial and fraudulent market share

and reduced market share of other channels - Advertiser stated that Republic TV has promoted

it's Single Event performance for the time slot 2100-2300, which is allowed by BARC guidelines.

The CCC observed that the 2-hour period was permissible under Single Event Reporting

guidelines. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Objection 6 - RTV has disparaged all channels operational in India, by claiming to create ‘A

New Record In Indian Television’ based on either impermissible and incorrect BARC data

and/or non-substantiation, thereof - In response to this objection, the advertiser stated that the

Single Event promotion is in accordance BARC Guidelines. Based on this response, the CCC

concluded that the Ad - mailer was not disparaging other channels. The claim, “A New Record

In Indian Television”, was considered as a Hyperbole. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Puranik Builders Limited

Complaint:

At the behest of SEBI, AMFI has launched a focussed investor education media campaign to

create better awareness among general public about mutual funds under the tag line “Mutual

Funds Sahi Hai” (MFSH) with simple messages and themes. One can invest in mutual funds by

making a lumpsum investment or in small / convenient instalments through Systematic

Investment Plan (SIP). SIP is a convenient investment methodology offered by Mutual Funds

wherein one could invest a specified amount in a mutual fund scheme periodically, at fixed

intervals – say once a month, instead of making a lump-sum investment – just like a bank

recurring deposit.

The concept of SIP has been painstakingly built by the mutual fund industry through continuous

education and awareness initiatives over 2 decades. The common public today understands that

SIP stands for small and regular investments in mutual funds which could help them fulfil their

long term financial goals, including buying house (even though many of them may not know the

full form of SIP !!) In short, SIP has become a popular and ubiquitous mutual fund term which

is understood by investors as well as noninvestors. Against the above backdrop, we would like

to draw your attention to a potentially misleading advertisement issued by Puranik Builders

Limited, a realty company, using the term SIP in the advertisement to promote their realty

projects in Pune. They have also compared a bank-loan EMI with a SIP, which again is an

example used by mutual funds to educate investors on the benefits of investing through the SIP

mode for long term investing. M/s. Puranik Builders have tried to take undue advantage of the

popularity of the term SIP by prominently using the term SIP in the advertisement which could

mis-lead gullible and un-informed individuals to believe that they are investing in a mutual fund

SIP from which they will ultimately acquire a house in Puranik housing project..




to respond to the same. The Advertiser replied seeking a meeting for informal resolution of

complaint. Subsequently, the advertiser and their advertising agency representatives were

offered a personal hearing twice with the ASCI Secretariat, at which time they assured to submit

their detailed response. The advertiser did not provide their specific comments on the complaint

by due date, nor did they fulfil the pre-requisites by confirming compliance by way of appropriate

modification or withdrawal of the objected claim, within the stipulated period. Therefore, the

complaint was processed for CCC deliberations. The CCC viewed the advertiser’s advertisement

and observed that the context of use of the term `SIP’ in the advertisement was very different

than that used by the complainant in their advertisements. The CCC noted that the complainant

cited in the complaint that `Systematic Investment Plan’ (SIP) is a convenient investment

methodology offered by Mutual Funds, whereas the advertiser’s advertisement was for purchase

of homes through `Smart Installment Plan’ (SIP). As per the CCC, there is no ownership of using

the term `SIP’ in the advertisement. Moreover, the advertiser has explained the abbreviation in

the advertisement. Based on this observation, the CCC concluded that the term `SIP’ in the

advertiser’s advertisement was not similar to the complainant’s mutual fund advertisement

campaign, so as to suggest plagiarism, as the term `SIP’ is an acronym which was used in

different context and for different category of services offered. The complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Touchstone Educationals

Complaint “The advertisement shows students smiling and asking whether the reader wants a 9

Band score in IELTS. It mentions that it is India's no 1 IELTS Institute and asks the readers of

the newspaper to come and join the institute.

It mentions that it is India's no. 1 IELTS Institute although the same has not been substantiated.

It is misleading in nature”




to respond to the same. The

Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they

did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser had stated in their response

that their institute is the first IELTS institute which the Cambridge University press chose as its

official knowledge partner. The said claim is made basis the rewards and recognitions received

by the advertiser from international bodies responsible for conducting the IELTS exam. As claim

support data, the advertiser provided copy of these award certificates.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. On reviewing

the award certificates, the CCC observed that IDP had awarded the advertiser for being No.1

India Business Partner

2017-18, and BCD had given the certificate for the advertiser’s institute for being Top Partner of

the year 2017-18.

Based on this data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No. 1 IELTS Institute”, was not

substantiated. The claim was misleading by omission of references of it being No.1 India

Business Partner as per IDP as well as the source and year for the same. The advertisement

contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as

Chapters I.1, I.2, and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Mind Tech Management

Complaint “Fraudulent and misleading ad stating that atone regardless of age and qualification

can become a psychological counsellor after 8 days training and secure Govt of India supported

certificate. while the fact is that it takes years of study (graduation/postgraduation/MPhil etc) the

advertisement is totally misleading and is aimed at deceiving and exploiting the naive and gullible

from the weaker sections of the community. Such a false ad when published by a newspaper that

has a credible standing in the community becomes all the more misleading. It is urged ASCI to

set an example by raking strongest possible measures in order to prevent misuse of public media

by unscrupulous ones in the community

The ad claims that they can train anyone regardless of age / qualification as a psychological

counsellor by attending just 8 sessions and award government of India supported certificate and

ID Card whereas it takes years of study leading to graduation/postgraduation/MPhil etc to

become a Counsellor in Psychology. Hence the advertisement under reference is fraudulent and

misleading especially for the naive and gullible and appear to have an ulterior intention of

misguiding and exploiting the weaker section of the community. It becomes all the more

misleading when such an ad is published in an accepted and well known newspaper like

MADHYAMAM. Prelinary informal/formal intimations to the office of MADHYAMAM have

fallen on deaf years and hence this complaint.”






had stated in their response that their institute is conducting deep level personality development

programs, and Training programs related to skill development. They are also giving skill

certificates to their students through National Development Agency promoted by Govt. of India.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint, and the response given

by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser has made only assertions regarding the

courses offered by them. They did not provide supporting evidence of the details of their program

or verifiable details of their students who had completed their Psychiatric Counselling courses

within the time period as claimed, and have become expert Psychiatric Counsellor or had

obtained Govt. of India certificate with ID card.

In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims (in Malayalam) as

translated in English, “People of any age and having any education can study within two months

(8 Saturdays). You can be an efficient expert Psychiatric Counsellor to solve your own mental

issues and others issues. Will get Govt. of India promoted certificate and ID card after the

course.”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration, and is likely to lead to grave

or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened



COMPANY: Times Network (Times Now)

Complaint:

“Channel On Air Promotion of Times Now on 26th July'18.

Times Now has used sliced target group NCCS AB Males 22-50 to calculate relative channel

share which is not permissible by BARC guideline. As well as calculated relative share also

wrong”






had stated in their response that there is no restriction in using relative shares, as the leadership

claim is not based on Single Event but previous 4 weeks as mandated by BARC guidelines.

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TV

– promo and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert

presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the specified BARC source is – BARC/ All

India 1MN+ /NCCS AB Males 22-50

/Wk 24-29’18, 24 hrs/Relative Share. The TV - promo is not for Single Event Reporting but

channel performance for 24 hours across 6 weeks. As the target group NCCS AB Males 22-50

can be directly queried from the BARC system, the CCC did not consider such reference to be

objectionable in the context of the advertisement. This complaint was NOT UPHELD

As for the objection raised against the reference made to relative share, the CCC observed that

publishing of relative shares was not permitted under BARC Usage Guidelines. In this context,

the CCC concluded that the subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer

an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is

truly the case. The Ad – TV promo contravened Chapters I.3 and IV.1(b) of the ASCI Code. This


COMPANY: Ayaan Foundation Ayaan Defence Academy

Claim Objected To:

“100% Job otherwise fee return.”







in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the

claim of “100% Job” was not substantiated with authentic supporting data such as detailed list of

students who have been placed through their Institute in defence sectors, contact details of

students for verification, enrolment forms and appointment letters received by the students, nor

any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is

likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Claim of

“otherwise fee return”, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence of the non-selected

students who were refunded with full paid fees, and is misleading by exaggeration.

The advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Hair Dream Center

Claims Objected To:

1. Get rid of baldness

2. Money back guarantee.








claim, “Get rid of baldness”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence and is misleading

by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. Claim, “Money back guarantee”, was not substantiated by providing details of the

money back package plans and how the entire treatment expenses are refunded. The advertiser

did not provide evidence of the patients who were not benefitted with the treatment, were

refunded with the amount. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The advertisement


COMPANY: Sri Venkateswara Filling Station

PRODUCT: Essar Oil

Claim Objected To: “World No.1 Oil Company”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser (Nayara Energy Ltd) for their response in addressing

the objection raised in the complaint. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal

Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied that they are not the

advertisers of the said advertisement. Subsequently, on ASCI’s request, the concerned media

(Eenadu) provided the name of the Ad. Agency - M/s Organ Ads, who had released the

advertisement, and also provided a copy of the advertisement release order. Upon carefully

viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of response from

the advertiser / advertising agency, the CCC concluded that the claim, “World No.1 Oil

Company”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser and other

similar oil companies worldwide, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the rest, or

through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The source for the

claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and


COMPANY: Sahu Air Cooler

Claim Objected To: “World No.1”








claim, “World No.1”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data for worldwide,

of the advertiser’s product and other competitive air coolers, to prove that it is in leadership

position (No.1) than the rest, or through a third party validation. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication and



UPHELD.

COMPANY: Skin Technology Clinic

Claim Objected To:

“Successful treatment of baldness”








claim, “Successful treatment of baldness”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence or

with treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The claim implying baldness cure as a

result of the treatment (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act), the

advertisement is in Breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106. The

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Shoolini University

Claim Objected To:

“100% placements from last 3 years.”







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

placements from last 3 years”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data on year on

year basis for the last 3 years as claimed, giving 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 is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The


COMPANY: Farouk Educational Trust

PRODUCT: Raak Arts and Science College

Claim Objected To:

“100% placement”








placement”, was not substantiated with authentic supporting data giving detailed list of students

who have been placed through their Institute, contact details of students for verification,



widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened Guidelines for

Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the


COMPANY: St. Soldier Institute of International Studies

Claim Objected To:

“The safest and right way to go for Canadian Education”






The CCC viewed the TVC and observed that the advertiser’s institute is providing Canadian

Pathway Program for students, for career in Canada, with first year course in India and

completion of the course in Canada.

In the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “The safest and right way to go for Canadian Education”, was not substantiated with

verifiable supporting data, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The claim is likely

to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened



COMPANY: Jai Hind Group of Institution

Claims Objected To:

1. 100% results since 2006.

2. 100% placements.






The CCC viewed the TVC and observed that the advertiser did not provide supporting evidence

of their institute having achieved 100% results on year on year basis since 2006. In the absence


results since 2006”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data or through a third party

validation.

Claim, “100% Placements” 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 claims are misleading by exaggeration and are

likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC



COMPANY: Times Internet Limited (Gaana.com)

Claim Objected To:

“India’s favorite music app.”

(Source of claim not mentioned.)


The ASCI approached the advertiser in addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The

Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The

advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The CCC noted that no response was

received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed

the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments

or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s Favorite Music App”,

was not substantiated with subscriber data or a market research data of the advertiser’s music app

against all other competitive music apps, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The

TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Vedanta Academy IAS

Claim Objected To:

“India s No. 1 Institute for UPSC Exams.”







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India s No.

1 Institute for UPSC Exams”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1)

than the rest, or through a third party validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is

likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The TVC contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as

well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: N Rangarao and Sons

PRODUCT: Vasu 100

Claim Objected To:

“Not only country’s but World’s No. 1”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied requesting for an extension to submit their

response. The advertiser was granted an extension of three days to the standard lead time of

seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for this extension. Advertiser in their

response stated that the claim made was basis an independent research/assessment conducted by

Nielsen for top three brands of agarbathis. The results showed that `Cycle’ brand was the largest

selling brand amongst the other three brands.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the said Nielsen report. For claim of

“World’s No.1”, the advertiser stated that they had assumed that they are the World's largest

agarbathi marketers based on various trade level interactions they had with similar manufacturers

of incense in other countries. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC observed that the Nielsen data showed that Cycle brand had a 14.2% share in terms of

value when considering the 12 month period ending June 2018, which was higher than 8.8% for

the nearest competitor. This data proved that Cycle Pure agarbathi was India’s No.1 in agarbathi

segment. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

However, the advertiser did not provide any authentic verifiable data to prove that the product is

No.1 in the world. In the absence of this data, the CCC concluded that the voice over in the TVC

claiming Cycle Pure agarbathi to be “World’s No.1”, was not substantiated with comparative

data of the advertiser’s product and other agarbathi brands worldwide, or through a third party

validation, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the


COMPANY: Prashanth Fertility Research Centre

Claims Objected To:

1. Are Continuous IUI and IVF Failures, Making your lose hope - we make your baby

dreams true.

2. Ranked No.1 Fertility Centre in Chennai.

Objection-

The mentioned claim in the advertisement implies guaranteed cure.




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. Advertiser stated in

their response that the claim of “…We make baby dreams come true”, is a tag line and does not

guarantee results. Further, Times of India has ranked their clinic as No.1 in Chennai. As claim

support data, the advertiser provided a copy of Àll India Fertility & IVF Ranking Survey 2018’.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response with

the supporting data given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Are Continuous

IUI and IVF Failures, Making your lose hope - we make your baby dreams true”, implies

guaranteed cure for infertility, which was not substantiated with supporting evidence. The claim


minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.

Further, on reviewing the ranking survey data, the CCC observed that the advertiser’s clinic

featured as Rank 1 listed under `Single Speciality Hospitals & Clinics of Chennai’. Based on

this data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked No.1 Fertility Centre in Chennai”, was not

objectionable. However, the source for the claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The

advertisement contravened Chapter 1.2 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Kolors Health Care India Pvt. Ltd

PRODUCT: Kolors Slimming & Beauty

Claim Objected To:

“Reduce belly, sides, thighs, hips in short period of time up to 6 inches without exercise, pills,

side effects and surgery.”

Objection-

The visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading.









any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Reduce

belly, sides, thighs, hips in short period of time up to 6 inches without exercise, pills, side effects

and surgery”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence, and with treatment

efficacy data, and are misleading by exaggeration. The images shown of a woman before and

after the treatment imply a significant weight loss which is also misleading, and is likely to lead

to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement


COMPANY: Marwadi Education Foundation - Marwadi University

Claim Objected To:

“University”






The CCC referred to the University Grants Commission website

(https://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/Consolidated%20list%20of%20All%20Universities.pdf)

wherein Marwadi University was listed at number 154 among various other Universities. The

complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Kolors Health Care India Pvt. Ltd

PRODUCT: Kolors Slimming & Beauty

Claim Objected To:

“Celebrity Rambha Reduced 15 Kgs in Just Few Months”

Objection- Advertisement is in potential violation of celebrity guidelines








claim, “Celebrity Rambha Reduced 15 Kgs in Just Few Months”, was not substantiated with

supporting clinical evidence for the weight loss achieved by Rambha due to advertised product /

service. The claim is misleading by exaggeration, and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The advertiser did not provide any evidence to show that the celebrity had done due diligence

prior to endorsement, nor any Testimonials Celebrity was provided.

The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1, I.4, I.5 of the ASCI Code and Clauses (c) and (d) of

the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. The complaint was UPHELD.

https://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/Consolidated%20list%20of%20All%20Universities.pdf

https://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/Consolidated%20list%20of%20All%20Universities.pdf

COMPANY: Sarkar Dispensary

Claims Objected To:

1. Best Ayurvedic Clinic.

2. Internationally Awarded.








claims, “Best Ayurvedic Clinic” and “Internationally Awarded”, were not substantiated with

copy of the award certificate, details of the criteria for granting the award, references of the award

received such as the year, source and category, references of the awarding body, its authenticity

and credibility etc. Claims are misleading by omission of disclaimer to qualify these claims and

is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The


UPHELD.

COMPANY: OPTM HealthCare Private Limited

Claims Objected To:

1. Get back healthy knees without operation, knee cap or Painkiller

2. Rapidly effective in comparison with other traditional treatments or products

including chondroitin. 100000+ Surgery prevented.






The CCC viewed the advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the

absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“Get back healthy knees without operation, knee cap or Painkiller”, and “Rapidly effective in

comparison with other traditional treatments or products including chondroitin”, were not

substantiated with scientific rationale or clinical evidence of “Phytotherapy” treatment efficacy

over traditional therapy. The advertiser did not provide any details of the products being used

under their phytotherapy, their composition and regulatory approvals etc.

Claim, “100000+ Surgery prevented”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the

patients suffering from knee problems who were advised knee surgery, successfully treated by

the advertiser’s phytotherapy so as to avoid surgery. The claims in the advertisement are

misleading by gross exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


COMPANY: Poddar Management Technical Campus

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement Assistance.”





stated in their response that they have a placement cell which provides training

lectures/sessions/workshops round the year to help the students to pass the job interviews, and

they also organise job fairs and campus drives round the year for suitable job openings for

students. As claim support data, the advertiser provided Training certificates of students, List of

students with companies name in which they were placed, and photographs of their Training

Sessions, Recruitment Drives organised by the advertiser’s institute. The CCC viewed the print

advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and the response given by the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the advertiser may be providing placement assistance

to their students, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim.

The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication and is likely to lead

to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement



COMPANY: Institute of Advanced Mgt & Research (IAMR)








in the absence of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while

the advertiser may be providing placement assistance to their students, the use of 100% numerical

is not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim




UPHELD.

COMPANY: Indirapuram Institute of Higher Studies

Claim Objected To:

“100% Assured & Guaranteed Placement Assistance”










of “100% Assured & Guaranteed Placement Assistance”, is misleading by implication and is



as well as Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Indus School of Business Mgt. (Gurgaon)

Claim Objected To: “100% Placement Assurance”








claim, “100% Placement assurance”, was not substantiated with supporting data, and is

misleading by implication and exaggeration. The claim is likely to lead to grave or widespread




COMPANY: Chathamkulam Foundation Charitable Trust

PRODUCT: Chathamkulam Inst of Research & Advanced Studies














UPHELD.

COMPANY: T. M. Bhagalpur University














UPHELD.

COMPANY: Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies (MACFAST)

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement Cell Assistance”








the advertiser may have a placement cell and may be providing placement assistance to their

students, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “Placement Cell Assistance” claim. The

use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication and is likely to lead to


Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.4 and


COMPANY: International School of Management (ISM Patna)

Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assistance”













UPHELD.

COMPANY: Netaji Subhas Institute of Business Management

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement Assistance.”





stated in their response that their institute puts 100% efforts in assisting their students to get jobs

through the campus placement drive by inviting Companies for Recruitments.




“Placement Assistance” claim. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading

by implication and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of



UPHELD.

COMPANY: Christ Institute of Management (CIM)

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement Assistance”













UPHELD.

COMPANY: KV Charitable Trust

PRODUCT: KVIM Business School

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement Record (Since Inception)”





advertiser stated in their response that since the Inception of their institute in 2009, they had 8

batches of students graduated till 2018. In 2011 and 2012 there were 60 students per batch, and

from thereon were 120 students per batch. The students who had opted for placement through

their institute had received one or more offers for placement. As claim support data, the advertiser

provided a batchwise summary list for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,

and 2016, giving the registration number of students, students name, and names of companies in

which they were placed. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the

complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

Placement Record (Since Inception)”, was inadequately substantiated on year on year basis since

inception, with authentic verifiable supporting data admission records / enrolment forms of their

students, contact details of students for verification, and appointment letters received by the

students, nor any independent audit or verification certificate. The claim is misleading by




was UPHELD.

COMPANY: EMPI Business School

Claim Objected To:

“Get Work Permit To Work In Canada After Course Completion”

(The above claim implies 100% Placement)






The CCC viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser did not provide

supporting evidence of students who had received job offers in Canada after completion of their

courses, and the companies in which they were placed. In the absence of any comments or

response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Get Work Permit To Work In

Canada After Course Completion”, was not substantiated. The claim implies guaranteed

placement in Canada, which is misleading by implication and is likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened



COMPANY: Harlal Institute of Management &Technology

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placements since last 20 years”








claim, “100% Placement since last 20 years”, was not substantiated on year on year basis since

last 20 years, 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






COMPANY: Indian Institute of Finance

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement track record”





advertiser stated in their response that the claim made is based upon the placement record of their

past students. Advertiser did not provide any supporting data for the claim made.


by the advertiser, and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“100% Placement track record”, 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 is misleading by exaggeration and is likely

to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement



COMPANY: LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd

PRODUCT: LG Refrigerator

Claims Objected to:

1. Linear Cooling

2. Keeps food fresh up to 14 days

Complaint:

Objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 and 2 with claim support data. The claim support data should not

be internal or based on studies commissioned by LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd.

2. Is the technology mentioned unique to this product?

3. A disclaimer appears which is hardly readable. This violates the ASCI Guidelines for

Disclaimers.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code and the ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be

immediately withdrawn.







complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in


“Linear Cooling” was not substantiated with technical data for product feature claiming to offer

cooling all across the refrigerator. Claim, “Keeps food fresh up to 14 days”, was not substantiated

with comparative data or with technical tests reports for the product. The claims are misleading

by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code.

The CCC observed that the hold duration and legibility of disclaimers in the TVC were not in

compliance in ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of

the ASCI Code, and Clauses 4 (VII) (X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Institute of Management Studies

Claim Objected To:

“100% Placement”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed the

advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. The advertiser stated in their response

that their Institute gives unlimited chances to their students for interviews, till they are selected

for placements. In the context of this assistance provided by the advertiser, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “100% Placement” implying guaranteed placement, was false, misleading and is



as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD. The CCC

observed that the advertiser provided a copy of the modified advertisement wherein the objected

claim was revised to mention “100% placement assistance”. As per the CCC, this revised claim

was not in compliance with Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs

as well as the ASCI Code, as the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “Placement

Assistance” claim which is misleading by implication.

COMPANY: Institute of Management Studies

Claims Objected To:

1. Consistent 100% Placements Since Inception

2. 100% Placements




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser replied

that the claims made in the advertisement are factual. As claim support data, the advertiser

provided a summary list of Placement Details for 2016-2018 Batch giving details of 286 students

– their names, roll numbers, number of offers received, and the names of companies where they

were placed. Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the

response with the supporting data given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“Consistent 100% Placements Since Inception” and “100% Placement”, were inadequately

substantiated on year on year basis since inception, 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 claims are misleading by exaggeration and are



as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Godrej Consumer Products Ltd

PRODUCT: Godrej No.1 Lemon and Aloe Vera Soap

Claims Objected To:

1. Glowing skin despite the sun and heat

2. 3/4 natural ingredients and extracts of Lemon and Aloe Vera

3. The biggest soap- Godrej No. 1 for Rs. 10

Complaint:

Description:

The ad begins with a husband (Amit Sadh) promising his wife (Sanjeeda Sheikh) to do everything

if she will tell him the secret of her glowing skin despite the sun and heat (Dries clothes, gets

grocery). The wife eventually shows him Godrej No. 1 lemon and aloe vera soap pack. Visual of

the wife bathing with Godrej No. 1 soap appears with a tagline and voiceover which say, “With

3/4 natural ingredients and extracts of Lemon and Aloe Vera.” A footnote states “Godrej No.1

with lemon and aloe vera has 76% fatty matter”. The wife then goes on to say “The biggest soap

for Rs 10 is Godrej No. 1” A disclaimer appears- “As compared to 5 biggest brands in the

country.” The ad ends with the Godrej No.1 jingle- “De No.1 Nikhaar Our objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 to 3 with claim support data. The claim support data should

not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.



the formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients provided? Can the advertiser

establish the relationship between the claims and the lemon and aloe vera in the soap?




4. The claim of a glowing skin despite sun and heat because of the ¾ natural ingredients

and lemon and aloe vera extracts cannot be considered “GENERIC” to the product. If

the advertiser is unable to establish the connection between the ingredients and the

claim, the advertisement is false and misleading.

5. Reference to claim 3; a disclaimer appears along with the claim saying, “As compared

to 5 biggest brands in the country.” Please substantiate the same with independent study

data.

6. Actress Sanjeeda Sheikh and Actor Amit Sadh feature in the advertisement. As per the

ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising, a Celebrity should do due diligence to

ensure that all description, claims and comparisons made in the advertisements they

appear in or endorse are capable of being objectively ascertained and capable of

substantiation and should not mislead or appear deceptive. The claims made by the

celebrities (Sanjeeda Sheikh and Amit Sadh) in this advertisement violate this clause of

the ASCI guidelines.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code and

the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. Action to be taken: We propose that the

advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.





ASCI Secretariat which they availed via telecon, and subsequently submitted their written

response. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the advertiser’s response.

Claim – “Glowing skin despite the sun and heat” – Advertiser stated that it is widely accepted

that a soap is useful to clean the human body. The said fact is such an undoubtedly proven fact

that it needs no independent substantiation. When dirty, dusty or oily body is cleansed with soap,

it certainly gives a refreshing, shiny look and feel. The same fact is expressed in an artistic manner

in the said Advertisement.

The CCC concluded that the claim, “Itni garmi, itni dhoop, phir bhi nikhra hai tumhara roop”

was not in contravention of the ASCI code.

Claim – “3/4 natural ingredients and extracts of Lemon and Aloe Vera” – In response to this

objection, the advertiser stated that the TVC quantifies the lime, aloe vera and natural ingredients

in a collective manner and the glow in spite of sun and heat is nowhere attributed solely to aloe

vera and lemon extract. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the Product

analysis to support that 100% blend composition of TFM for their Grade 1 soap which is derived

from various vegetable oils, is essentially made of 3/4th natural ingredients. Based on the

advertiser’s response, the CCC did not consider the claim, “Godrej No.1 mein hai ¾ prakritik

tatva… aur aloe vera… nimbu.” to be objectionable.

Claim – “The biggest soap- Godrej No. 1 for Rs. 10” – Advertiser stated that the said claim is

based on comparison with top 5 brands of the country. Advertiser in their response provided

weightage of top 5 soap brands, and their cost. Advertiser also provided product packs of these

soaps for verification. From this data, it was evident that Godrej No.1 (63gm) was the biggest

soap available in the market for Rs. 10/-. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “10 rupaye mein sabse bada saabun Godrej No.1.”, was substantiated.

The complaint regarding endorsement by the Celebrity was examined by the CCC. It was seen

that the advertisement shows photographs of Actress Sanjeeda Sheikh and Actor Amit Sadh, who

were not considered to be persons likely to have a huge influence on public for product purchase

decision. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pan Parag India Ltd

PRODUCT: Pan Parag Pan Masala

Claim Objected To:

“World’s most popular pan masala.” (Disclaimer’s not in Hindi.)





The advocate on behalf of the advertiser responded that the product Pan Parag Pan Masala is very

popular and unparalleled among its customers all over the world due to its unique quality and

reach. The brand has also received several popular awards like FMCG Award for the year 2003

and 2004 for the continuous faith of its valued consumers, and customer satisfaction in India and

also in other countries.

Advertiser provided a copy of FSSAI license and copy of front panel of different variants of the

products.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint, and the response given

by the advertiser, the CCC observed that the advocate’s response has only assertions about their

product. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “World’s most

popular pan masala”, was not substantiated with any worldwide consumer survey data or any

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other pan masala products, to prove

that their product is the most popular among all, or through a third party validation. The claim is


minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened the Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI

Code. The CCC also observed that the disclaimers in the advertisement were not legible and also

not in the same language as the body copy of the advertisement (Hindi). The advertisement

contravened Clauses 4 (I) and (VII) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Green Roots Pvt Ltd (Eat Organic the Organic Food Store)

Claims Objected To:

1. Organic food is healthier - Builds strong immune system and protects from heart disease &

cancer as it contains phenolic compounds.

2. Organic vegetables & fruits are more nutritional as they are grown without chemical inputs.





stated in their response that the content for the advertisement was taken from a Website article

on the top eight benefits of Organic Food for human body. The CCC viewed the print

advertisement and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any specific

comments with claim support data from the advertiser, observed that the basis for the claims was

only an article on the internet. There were no authentic, published scientific references to support

the claims. The CCC concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that organic food is

nutritionally better than conventional - the only difference being that there are less chances of

contamination of pesticides etc. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“Organic food is healthier which builds strong immune system and protects from heart disease

& cancer as it contains phenolic compounds”, and “Organic vegetables & fruits are more

nutritional as they are grown without chemical inputs”, were not adequately substantiated with

any technical data, and are misleading by ambiguity. The advertisement contravened Chapters

I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pernod Ricard India

PRODUCT: Royal Stag

Complaint:

“The ad shows Ranveer Singh coping up with various mental and physical hardships in order to

become the successful star that he is today.

The Brand aims to promote Music CDs although there seems to be no co-relation between the

success of the star and Music CDs as shown in the advertisement. The tagline "It's your life,

MAKE IT LARGE" can have various meanings that can also be used to promote other

commodities indirectly that Royal Stag provides the market with which includes alcohol.”






had stated in their response that the basis and underlying idea of the advertisement is independent

of any alcoholic beverages, and is related to Music Compact Discs under the brand name “Royal

Stag Mega Music” which has been used continuously since 2004. The tagline “It’s your Life,

Make it Large” in the TVC does not promote or illustrate alcohol as a product. As claim support

data, the advertiser provided copies of Trademark registration certificates, registrations for Royal

Stag with respect to Music CDs (class 9) and Cricket Gear (classes 25 and 28), and List of retail

outlets selling “Royal Stag Mega Music” Music CDs along with photographs of “Royal Stag

Mega Music” CD. The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement and considered the advertiser’s

response. The CCC observed that the Advertiser did not provide the annual market sales data of

the product/service advertised. Based on the reference to Music CDs, the CCC concluded that

the advertisement depicting the Royal Stag brand name is a surrogate advertisement for

promotion of a liquor product – Seagram’s Royal Stag. The YouTube advertisement is

misleading by implication, and has reference to the words “It’s your life. Make it Large” and

contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6(b) of the ASCI Code (“Whether there exists in the

advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to

consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is

restricted by this Code.”) Furthermore, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per

ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby

contravened Chapter III.6(a) of the ASCI Code (“Whether the unrestricted product which is

purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced

and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question,

the media used and the markets targeted.”). The complaint was UPHELD.

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:-

Sr. No Advertiser (Brand / Product)

Claims Objected to Remarks (Clause Applicable)

1. Shree

Dhanvantri

Herbals - Swing Forte

Capsule

Improves arousal and stamina in sexual disorders.

The maintenance or improvement of

the capacity of human

beings for sexual

pleasure. Section 3(b) -

DMR Schedule

COMPANY: Stitchman – Ret Jack

PRODUCT: Sewing machine

Claim Objected To:

“China’s No. 1.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION RE-EXAMINATION: UPHELD


the complaint. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was

examined by the CCC on the basis of the materials available then and an Exparte decision was

taken. On receiving the CCC’s recommendation, the advertiser replied that they are the

authorized agent of Jack Sewing machine, China, and they have been advised by their principal

Jack to use the claim of “China No1” in the marketing of their product. Subsequently, the

Advertiser was granted an extension of 20 days to the standard lead time of seven days to submit

their reply in response to their request for this extension. Advertiser in their response for

reexamination stated that Jack was ranked as No.1 sewing machine in China light industry by the

China National Light Industry Council, for their total sales in 2017.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided copies of the above certificates, and photographs

of the exhibition conducted by Jack in various nations wherein they displayed their product

claiming it to be “China’s No.1”.

The CCC viewed the advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response for re-examination.

The CCC observed that there is a mismatch of the text used in the certificate versus the claim

made in the advertisement. The certificate of June 2018 stated that the advertiser ranked “No.1

in top 30 enterprise in China Light Industry Equipment Manufacturing”. Based on this

observation, the CCC concluded that the claim, “China’s No.1” was misleading by ambiguity

and omission of mention of the specific category. The claim was also not qualified to mention

the source for the same. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.2 and I.4 of the ASCI Code.

The complaint stands Upheld on Re-examination.

COMPANY: Shopkio

Complaint:

“It’s a saree advertisement, seeing which I have ordered a saree for mother,

https://www.shopkio.com/productdetail/attractiveblue- colored-printed-khadi-silk-saree-

onlineshopkio/ 899. I have been misled by shopkio against the order of saree which i am taking

it as a humiliation of consumer i am feeling very distressed now because of company reaction in

my case is very lethargic hence I seek your intervention & support to bring the matter into

conclusion & help me to get the right saree which is still available on website. Now i felt trapped

& shopkio has challenged my sense of vision & understanding to judge the product. Appreciate

your prompt reply & support on this.”







complaint. Complainant provided picture of the advertised product (Saree) displayed online and

the product actually delivered to him, and copy of correspondence exchanged with the advertiser.

https://www.shopkio.com/product-detail/attractiveblue-%20colored-printed-khadi-silk-saree-onlineshopkio/%20899
















The CCC observed that the advertiser in his communication with the complainant had admitted

that there could be a slight difference in color between the picture of the product model shown

and the actual product due to the light of the camera.

The CCC viewed the website advertisement, the photograph of the actual product received by the

complainant, and based on the evidence provided of the advertiser agreeing to image editing, the

CCC concluded that the website advertisement offer of “Attractive Blue Colored Printed Khadi

Silk Saree Online”, with the visual of the model shown with the same colour saree, was false,

misleading by distortion, and misrepresentation of facts. The advertisement is likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The


COMPANY: DET Coaching Centre - DCC Institute

Claims Objected To:

1. The only Institute in Haryana which has given highest selections in last 15

years in BSc, Agriculture, VS and VLDA.

2. Guarantee of 100% success.


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Dainik Bhaskar) for their assistance in providing

the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The CCC noted

that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media prior to the due

date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of response

from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“The only Institute in Haryana which has given highest selections in last 15 years in BSc,

Agriculture, VS and VLDA”, was not substantiated with verifiable comparative data on year on

year basis for the last 15 years, of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in

Haryana, to prove that they have been the only one to have given highest selections of students

for the claimed courses, or through an independent third party validation. Claim, “Guarantee of

100% success”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data of students who have

achieved 100% success.

The claims are misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened the Guidelines for


ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Hair Grow

Claims Objected To:

1. It’s easy to grow hair, grow real hair in 60 days.

2. Remove baldness even if you are bald from birth.





The advocate on behalf of the advertiser replied that their client (advertiser) has denied of having

published the said advertisement, and hence refused to provide their comments on the complaint.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement, and observed that the advertiser did not provide any

details of the concerned party who had released the advertisement in Dainik Jagran, nor did they

provide any copy of their communication exchanged with the party / concerned media for having

published the said advertisement without their consent. In the absence of these details, the

complaint was placed for processed for CCC deliberations.

In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claims, “It’s easy to grow hair,

grow real hair in 60 days”, and “Remove baldness even if you are bald from birth”, were not

substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy data. The claims are

misleading by exaggeration and exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. Efficacy being depicted via

images of before and after the treatment are misleading. Specific to the claims implying baldness

prevention (a condition referred in Schedule J of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act) is in Breach of

the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Rule 106. The advertisement contravened Chapters


COMPANY: Skyline Builders

PRODUCT: Skyline Cambridge

Claim Objected To:

“Kerala’s No 1 Builder”





stated in their response that the advertisement highlighted the prominent features of their project

of a residential apartment complex in Trivandrum. The said claim has been made in the context

of their track record of more than 29 years in this field. They are the first

Builders in Kerala to be accredited with CRISIL DA2+ Grade, than any other builders. They have

launched over 127 projects in various parts of Kerala, and along with this the 16 ongoing projects

makes them the No. 1 Builder in Kerala with the highest number of projects launched.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy of CRISIL DA2+ Certificate, ISO 9001:2015

Certificate, copy of awards received by them, and News coverages in print media about their

organisation.

Upon carefully viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the

advertiser, the CCC observed that the data provided by the advertiser is not relevant for their

claim of being No.1. The advertiser did not provide any key criteria for leadership and verifiable

comparative data with other Builders in Kerala, to prove that they are better than the rest, or

through a third party validation. In the absence of this data, the CCC concluded that the voiceover

claim in the TVC, “Kerala’s No 1 Builder”, was not substantiated. The claim is misleading by


consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Cura Pharmaceuticals

PRODUCT: Arshcura Capsule

Claim Objected To:

“Without operation for piles take Arsh cura Piles”

Objection-

The Above claim and product name in the advertisement implies cure


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Jagran Prakashan Ltd) for their assistance in

providing the contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the complaint to the advertiser. The

CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser or from the concerned media prior

to the due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement. In the absence of

response from the concerned media and comments from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “Without operation, for piles take Arsh cura”, was not substantiated with evidence of

product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4,


COMPANY: Kavish Range of Products

PRODUCT: Kavish Royal Cream

Claim Objected To:

“For the first time in Indian history what was impossible is now possible; get rid of dark skin

with cream”

Objection-

The before and after visuals in the advertisement appear to be misleading.








claim, “For the first time in Indian history what was impossible is now possible; get rid of dark

skin with cream”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data to prove permanent effect on

changing skin complexion. Advertiser also did not provide comparative data versus other similar

creams, for claiming their product to be the first in providing the claimed benefit. The claim is


minds of consumers. Product efficacy being depicted via visuals of before and after the treatment

are misleading by gross exaggeration. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of

the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: IMM-FOSTIIMA Business School

Claim Objected To:

“100% Campus Placements”




Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied requesting for an extension to submit their

response. The advertiser was granted an extension of four days to the standard lead time of seven

days to submit their reply in response to their request for this extension. The advertiser stated in

their response that a total of 112 students had passed out in the year 201718, of which a total of

12 students did not apply for the placements. As claim support data, the advertiser provided an

excel sheet of Placement 2016-2018 giving names of 100 students with the names of companies

where they were placed, and names of 12 students who did not apply for placements.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response with

the supporting data given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Campus

Placements”, was inadequately 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 is misleading by exaggeration and is likely

to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The advertisement


Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

PRODUCT: Pepsodent Toothpaste with Active Clay

Claims Objected to:

1. New Pepsodent Germicheck + with natural clay activated formula

2. 12 hr protection against cavity causing germs

3. Releases Calcium and Minerals to make your teeth strong and prevent cavities

Complaint:

1. With reference to the claims 1-3, please substantiate the claim with claim support data.

The claim support data should not be based on internal studies or studies commissioned

by Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

2. Is the amount of activated clay significant to make an impact on the performance of the

product as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the benefits of the formulation

attributable to the claimed ingredients provided?

3. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness

of each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the

ingredients appear to have symbolic presence in the product?

4. The visual shows natural clay in abundance. Is it present in such quantities to qualify

the shown image?

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be taken:

We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.





ASCI Secretariat which they availed and subsequently submitted their written response.

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the print

advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert

presented at the meeting.

Claim – “New Pepsodent Germicheck + with natural clay activated formula” – Advertiser stated

that the product introduced in January 2018 has the proprietary technology of Cetyl Pyridinium

Chloride (CPC) - Clay complex which is being used for the first time. As claim support data, the

advertiser provided copy of the product label artwork showing the list of ingredients, published

study for efficacy of CPC, and journal reference on Synthesis, Characterization and Evaluation

of Clay Based Particulate Antimicrobial Agents. The CCC observed that CPC is an effective

antimicrobial agent for the oral cavity, which is known for its effectiveness and has been useful

in mouth washes due to the lingering effect. The study was done on bovine enamel (tooth). The

lingering effect has been created in the toothpastes by a CPC to clay bonding, which does not

alter the CPC s effectiveness due to alkali treatment.

Claim – “12 hr protection against cavity causing germs” - In response to this objection, the

advertiser stated that the efficacy of the formulation in providing protection against germs for 12

hours was proven through a study on antibacterial effect of a Novel CPC-Clay containing

toothpaste. As claim support data, the advertiser provided a clinical study report of Anti-bacterial

effect of Toothpaste Containing 1.5% CPC-Clay.

Claim – “Releases Calcium and Minerals to make your teeth strong and prevent cavities”-

Advertiser stated that Pepsodent Germicheck is an efficacious toothpaste formulated with

Calcium Carbonate and Sodium Monofluoro Phosphate to make teeth strong and prevent cavities.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided relevant literatures showing fluoride, phosphate

as mineral, a study on In vitro hydrolysis of mono fluoro phosphate by dental plaque

microorganisms, a study on Calcium and Phosphorus concentration of Dental Plaque related to

Dental caries, Relevant literature on caries prevention by fluoride, a study on effect of Calcium

Carbonate - based dentrifice on enamel demineralization, a study showing Calcium and

Phosphorus concentration of Dental Plaque related to Dental caries.

The CCC observed that Calcium carbonate based toothpastes are known to release Calcium and

enhance the level of calcium ion in plaque. This was supported by a study on Calcium and

Phosphorus concentration of Dental Plaque related to Dental caries. The Sodium-

Monofluorophosphate (MFP) contained in the toothpaste, increases the fluoride ion

concentration of plaque, within minutes of brushing. Besides fluoride, concentration of minerals

like Calcium and Phosphorous in plaque, have an inverse relationship with caries. Calcium

carbonate, in the toothpaste, enhances effect of fluoride and makes it more effective in reducing

enamel (tooth) demineralization. Based on the advertiser’s response with the supporting data

provided, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“New Pepsodent Germicheck + with natural clay activated formula”, “12 hr protection against

cavity causing germs”, and “Releases Calcium and Minerals to make your teeth strong and

prevent cavities”, were substantiated. The creatively depicted visual was not considered to be

objectionable. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: TV9 (TV9 Gujarati)

Claim:

“TV9 Gujarati No. 1

Objection:

1. Please substantiate the claim with claim support data. The claim support data should not

be internal or based on studies commissioned by TV9 Gujarati.

2. Is there data to show how TV9 Gujarati compares with other News Channels in Gujarat?

Is the claim substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable comparative data of advertiser

services with other competitive services? Is there any third party validation to prove these claims?

Is the credibility and authenticity of the certifying bodies well established?

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action to

be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”







complaint. The CCC viewed the TVC and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in


“TV9 Gujarati No. 1”, was not substantiated with viewership data of the advertiser’s channel

against all other competitive channels, to prove that it is in leadership position (No.1) than the

rest, and is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the TVC. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The

complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: The Himalaya Drug Company

PRODUCT: Himalaya Kajal

Claims objected to:

1. 100% natural black colour gives you intensely expressive eyes

2. Its almond oil helps in nourishing and damask rose helps in cooling

Complaint:

The ad begins with a voiceover saying that your eyes say a lot. We see various clips where Kajal

Agarwal throws a birthday cake at her friends face, picks up the keys and rides a 2-wheeler, eats

ice cream all focusing on her eyes. Voiceover about Himalaya Kajal- 100% natural black colour

gives you intensely expressive eyes. Its almond oil helps in nourishing and damask rose helps in

cooling.






Advertiser provided copy of product label and product license. The claim support data provided

by the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and

considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the Technical expert presented at

the meeting.

Claim – “100% natural black colour gives you intensely expressive eyes” – Advertiser stated that

the product is formulated with 100% vegetable carbon black and it's the only natural pigment/

colorant used in the formulation to impart intense black color. Advertiser provided a copy of

certificate from the supplier of Vegetable Carbon Black and copy of relevant reference from the

database of Personal Care Products Council.

The CCC observed that the advertiser has followed classical method of preparation of Kajal

thereby developing natural black color of the product. Based on the advertiser’s response with

the supporting data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% natural black colour gives you

intensely expressive eyes”, was substantiated.

Claim – “Its almond oil helps in nourishing and damask rose helps in cooling” – In response to

this objection, the advertiser stated that the benefits defined with regard to the Almond oil and

Damask Rose are purely ingredient-based claims. Himalaya Kajal is infused with Almond oil.

The product also has goodness of Damask rose known for its cooling property. Each pack of the

product (weighing 2.7 g) contains 27.87 mg rose extracts. The advertiser submitted formula

details and relevant literature references.

The CCC observed that the use of ingredients almond and damask rose are prescribed in classical

texts to obtain Kajal as is being claimed.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Its almond oil helps in nourishing

and damask rose helps in cooling”, was substantiated.

The CCC observed that the visual of the celebrity when seen in conjunction with these claims

were not likely to mislead consumers regarding the product.

The complaints were NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Singhania University

Claims objected to:

1. India’s first innovative Industrial training based placement oriented education.

2. India’s first innovative competitive exams focused integrated curriculum.

Objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 and 2 with claim support data. The claim support data should not

be internal or based on studies commissioned by Singhania University.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action

to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.

ASCI observed that the advertisement makes a claim of “100% Placement Assistance” which is

likely to be misleading by implication.







complaint. The CCC viewed the print advertisement and upon careful consideration of the


concluded that the claims, “India’s 1st Innovative Industrial training based placement oriented

education”, and “India’s 1st Innovative competitive exams focused integrated curriculum”, were

not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other

similar institutes to prove that they are pioneers in providing innovative training / exams. The

claims are misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The print advertisement contravened


and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Romana Distillery Industrial Pvt

PRODUCT: Romana Water

Claim Objected To:

“Water with highest natural minerals available in Kerala.”





stated in their response that their product contains maximum natural minerals and the richness of

these natural minerals in their source of water is equipping them to supply mineral rich water.

Several tests done both in house and also through approved laboratories have confirmed a TDS

levels of more than 80 ppm, than the TDS levels of other manufacturers which ranges from 5 to

40.

As this response was only assertions and inadequate, ASCI requested the advertiser to provide

test reports and comparative data versus other leading manufacturers. The advertiser was further

granted an extension of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for an

extension of two weeks. Further they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their

submission via telecon. Subsequently, the advertiser provided test reports of their product, both

in house and from external agency and in house test for competitor product. Upon carefully

viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response with the supporting

data given by the advertiser, the CCC observed that while the advertiser provided test report from

external agency for their own product, such third party test data for competitor products was not

provided. The CCC did not consider the advertiser’s in house data reliable and acceptable for

comparative claim. There was no rationale as to why advertiser’s product would have high

minerals as compared to other similar products that were also sourced in a similar manner.

Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Water with highest natural

minerals available in Kerala”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim was misleading by

exaggeration and likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD.

COMPANY: Ahzaab Foods Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Healthy Wings

Claims Objected To:

“More protein” “Less fat”





stated in their response that the claims made are based on laboratory test report, for which they

referred to a website link for comparison of the protein and fat content of their chicken.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

also verified the website link which referred to a published Report in public domain on Ùnited

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference

– Release April 2018’, giving details on proximate nutrient values and weights of chicken.

The CCC observed that as per the lab test report, the protein value of the chicken was 21.9g/100g

which was more than the prescribed limit (18.60g/100g), and the fat content was 1.04g/100g

which was lesser than the prescribed limit (15.06g/100g) as compared to Broiler variety of

chicken.

Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the claims, “More protein” and “Less fat”

were substantiated. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Marico. Ltd.

PRODUCT: Saffola Gold

Claim Objected to:

“Oil is absorbed less while frying”

Complaint:

Description: Advertisement starts with a wife asking her husband not to eat fried food. But her

husband doesn’t stop. Then she says that her husband. Vishal’s habit of eating fried food will not

reduce. But thankfully her Saffola Gold oil is absorbed less while frying. She then asks (the

viewers) what about your oil? Saffola Gold pack is shown. Voiceover – Saffola, Dil se healthy.

Objections:

1. Please substantiate the claim with claim support data. The claim support data should not

be internal or based on studies commissioned by Marico Ltd.

2. The claim Saffola Gold Oil is absorbed less is in comparison with which oil? Is there a

like to like comparison made or data is presented in such a way so as to suggest that

Saffola Oil is better than is truly the case?

3. Even if the oil has low absorption, how does the advertiser promote unhealthy eating by

saying that the habit of eating fried will not reduce but thankfully Saffola gold is

absorbed less. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

and Self-Regulation Guidelines on Advertising of Foods & Beverages (F& B) of ASCI

code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately

withdrawn.”





ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and subsequently submitted their written response. The

advertiser had stated in their response that Saffola Gold is made using the patented Losorb®

technology which means that lesser quantities of the oil are absorbed. External laboratory tests

conducted established that Saffola Gold absorbed less than other oils in the market. As claim

support data, the Advertiser provided a copy of the granted patent, and a copy of the laboratory

report.

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC


the meeting. The CCC observed that the study undertaken in 2017 took into account the variety

of oils generally used for frying in kitchen. The said support data was considered as acceptable

for the claim made.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim “…. Saffola Gold khaane mein kam

absorb hota hai”, (“Oil is absorbed less while frying”) was substantiated.

The CCC did not agree with the complainant’s argument that the advertisement is promoting

unhealthy eating. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

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

Sr. No Advertiser (Brand / Product)

Claims Objected to Remarks (Clause

Applicable)

1. Vee Excel

Drugs And Pharmaceutica

ls Private Limited - AXL

Vega Fem

Breast

Enlargement gel and

capsules

1. Based on natural herbal

formula, the product also helps

in gaining softer, smother

texture breasts as

well as much younger

looking cleavage without

requirement for dangerous and

costly implants or

injections.

2. Being safe to use, these

are highly effective with no side

effects and the ingredients used

in this product works by

gradually augmenting size as

well as shape of breasts which

helps to promotes healthy

transformation.

Form and

structure of the

female bust Item

No.21- DMR

Schedule

COMPANY: Franke Faber India Ltd.

PRODUCT: Faber 3D Hood Chimney

Claims Objected to:

1. The world's only 3D chimney with 3 way suction that makes your kitchen completely smoke-

free

2. 15% better grease reduction,

3. 25% Higher Suction area

Complaint:

Description: The ad begins with visuals of Faber Chimney with taglines saying, “World’s only

3D Hood Chimney”, “15% better grease reduction”, “25% Higher Suction area”, “10dB noise

reduction” and “12 years warranty.” A voiceover is played along with the visuals- “Faber

presents the world's only 3D chimney with 3 way suction that makes your kitchen completely

smoke-free. Now quit smoking in the kitchen.” A woman who is shown cooking in the kitchen

says, “Bring home the Faber 3D Hood today and quit smoking in the kitchen.

Our objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 to 3 with claim support data. The claim support data should not

be internal or based on studies commissioned by Franke Faber India Ltd.

2. Reference to claim 2 and 3; ‘15% better grease reduction’ and ‘25% Higher Suction area’ as

compared to what? Please substantiate.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the ASCI Code.

Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON RE-EXAMINATION: NOT UPHELD


complainant. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was examined

by the CCC on the basis of the materials available then and an exparte decision was taken.

Advertiser replied post the due date of ASCI’s earlier letter requesting for their comments on the

complaint. They informed that the said letter was addressed to their registered address which is

their production location, and hence there was a delay internally at the advertiser’s end in

delivering the letter to the correct contact address. In view of this, the Advertiser requested for

re-examination of the complaint, and also advised ASCI to keep the CCC recommendation on

hold, and assured that they would immediately suspend the offending TVC if CCC felt that the

said TVC required modification after re-examination.

Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their written response. The claim support data was

reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the TVC and considered the

Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting.

Claim – “The world's only 3D chimney with 3 way suction that makes your kitchen completely

smoke-free” - Advertiser replied that the claim of “World’s only 3D Chimney” was based on

market search of all the leading brands for Kitchen hoods/ Range Hood/ Extractor Hood category,

wherein the advertiser verified the contents of these product catalogues and their relevant

websites available in public opinion, and found that none of them offered products with 3 way

suction technology as that of advertiser. For the claim, “Makes your kitchen completely smoke-

free”, the advertiser stated that in Faber 3D hoods, there are two additional lateral filters on the

body of the hood which enables the suction to happen from 3 directions. This feature is not

available in other brands hence they are unable to provide three directional suction.

The CCC noted that the advertiser has surveyed the major significant manufactures of kitchen

chimneys in the market and observed that none of these made chimney with the 3D technology.

Based on the advertiser’s response, the claim of “The world's only 3D chimney with 3 way

suction”, was not considered to be objectionable. This complaint was Not Upheld on Re-

examination.

However, the advertiser did not provide any evidence that smoke concentrations in the kitchen

was measured with and without the chimneys. “Completely smoke-free” being an absolute claim

for the Chimney performance, in the absence of any test data to prove 100% removal of smoke,

the CCC concluded that the claim, “Makes your kitchen completely smoke-free”, was not

substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of

the ASCI Code. This complaint stands Upheld on Re-examination.

Claims – “15% better grease reduction” and “25% Higher Suction area” – In response to these

objections, the advertiser stated that these claims are based on increased surface area available

for suction owing to presence of lateral filters. Advertiser in their response provided a table

showing calculation for comparison of the suction area between a normal chimney and a 3D

Chimney. The results showed that the 3D chimney with lateral filters, offered 46% and 30%

higher suction area when compared with non 3D chimney of the same size. The CCC observed

that 15% better grease reduction and 25% higher suction area based on higher area for suction

due to lateral entry and 46-30% more area in these chimneys is feasible. Based on this

assessment, and in the absence of any data contrary to this performance claim, this complaint

was Not Upheld on Reexamination.

COMPANY: TAFE Motors and Tractors Limited

Complaint:

Can be varified with company balance sheet and members transactions. 30 lakh saving by tafe

no to and tractor is misleading advertising.how it is possible. Hindustan times Delhi 24 5 page

11.

buy 125 kva generator and save upto 30 lakh is totallly a misleading adver. what is the cost of

generator and how it is saving 30 lakh never possible. is there any example of 125 kva used by

any customer as claimed by tafe.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON RE-EXAMINATION: NOT UPHELD


complainant. However, in the absence of response prior to the due date, the matter was

examined by the CCC on the basis of the materials available then and an Exparte decision was

taken. Advertiser replied post the due date of ASCI’s earlier letter requesting for their

comments on the complaint. They requested for re-examination of the CCC recommendation

and informed that they have suspended publishing of the said advertisement pending

reexamination recommendation. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted their response for re-

examination. As claim support data, the advertiser provided brochures of various Genset

manufacturers. Advertiser in their response also provided a comparative table showing fuel

consumption values of the advertiser’s model – 125KVA and similar models of other

manufacturers. The results showed that the maximum difference in the fuel consumed

between 125KVA model and other models was 2.5 liters per hour. Advertiser further

explained the calculations for the saving amount claimed, which is Rs.2.5 per liter less than the

other models, multiplied by the cost of diesel price per liter (Rs.73), further multiplied by the

total running hours (i.e. 20000) of 125 KVA, which summed upto Rs.36 lakhs.

The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the

print advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of

Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the advertisement claims

a saving of “up to Rs 30 lakhs” on purchase of TMTL genset. The advertiser provided

evidence based on the fuel consumption from catalogues of competitors and compared the

performance at 75% Full load (constant) for the entire 20,000 hours of operation. It was noted

that the difference in fuel consumption ranges from 0.3 litres/ hour to 2.5 liters/hour depending

on the baseline model against which a comparison was made. The cumulative saving over the

20,000 hours of operation was computed with the highest possible saving (2.5 l/hour) to get

the Rs 30 lakhs figure. In a certain case for a comparison with a specific competitor model for

constant operation at 75% full load for the total rated life these savings may be achieved, to

which the advertiser provided a plausible explanation. Based on this assessment, the CCC

concluded that the claim (in Hindi) “125 KVA generator ke purna kaaryakaal mein Rs. 30 lakh

ki bachat”, was substantiated. The complaint was Not Upheld on Reexamination.

COMPANY: Blue Star Limited

PRODUCT: Blue Star Water Purifier

Complaint:

Claims that the use of the water purifier Improves immunity. Claims it as "immuno boost"

Technology. How can just consuming purified water improve immunity? Use Children as models

drinking water form water bottles. Can someone show children in such advs? Is it not against

using infants and children in ads? Making such a tall health benefit claims? This need to be

stopped. How can a simple water purifier claim that it can enhance Immunity and they Firm

claims "IMMUNO BOOST TECHNOLOGY". It is not easy to alter the immunity of person and

that too with drinking purified water. This looks like a tall claim.





ASCI Secretariat which they availed and subsequently submitted their written response. The

advertiser had stated in their response that Immuno Boost Technology enhances the pH level of

water, giving alkaline water. If the purified water passes through an Immuno Boost Cartridge it

provides alkaline antioxidant water which on purification strengthens the defense system

enhancing immunity.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided Certificate of analysis report, role of alkaline

antioxidant water in boosting immunity, Summary of literature review that Alkaline / Antioxidant

water enhances immune system, Detailed clinical research that Alkaline water enhances immune

system.



the meeting. The CCC observed the literature and references provided by the advertiser related

to potential health benefits of electrolytically processed water, mainly in animals and a few in

humans. Literature cited was not with the respondent Company's product.

No test report of the ARW produced by the Company’s unit was provided, neither as to the

physico-chemical effects, like reduction potentials, nor to its immune action. Various test reports

provided related to the compliance to water quality standards and were not related to the immune

boosting action in humans for test with the advertiser's product. For an important claim as

immune-boosting action, it would be necessary to have tests with the advertiser's product

showing immune boosting action in humans.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Immuno Boost Technology”, was

inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration, exploits consumers’ lack

of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Kish Academy

Complaint:

Kish Academy Claiming "most successful institute for cat coaching in Guntur & Vijayawada,

also claiming 172 students secured IIM Selections, further the claim" 103 local college students

secured IIM admissions"

The claim "most successful institute for cat coaching in Guntur & Vijayawada" is completely

misleading. On what parameters does Kish academy claim to be the most successful? Do they

have comparative figures of other similar coaching institutes to substantiate their claim?

The claim "172 students secured IIM Selections" is also vague and misleading as it's not

mentioned in which year these students have been selected in the IIMs.

Also, they have not mentioned about any third party validation of their results.

Also, the claim" 103 local college students secured IIM admissions" is completely misleading

and intended to attract aspirants to join Kish academy. The claim is vague as they have not

mentioned the name of the colleges or students which shows that they are local college / students.

Kish academy must be asked to prove and validate these fake claims



complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a

request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal

Hearing with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s

request. The CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the

prescribed due date for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding, and upon careful

consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, "Most successful institute for CAT coaching in

Guntur & Vijayawada”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, comparative data

of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that they are better than the rest

in providing CAT coaching, or through a third party validation. Claims, “172 students

secured IIM Admissions” and “103 local college students secured IIM admissions", were not

substantiated with supporting data such as detailed list of students with their contact details,

enrolment forms, and the year these students were selected in the IIMs. The claims are

misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The Ad - Hoarding contravened Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.


COMPANY: Lenskart.com

Complaint:

2 Pairs Rs 999 for Gold members.

Lenskart has this major promotion pasted on the glass door of its showroom at Connaught Place

Mall, Greater Noida whereby they claim to offer 2 pairs at Rs 999 for Gold Members. We went

ahead and purchased 2 spectacle frames worth Rs 999 each and asked the store incharge to make

us a Gold Member at their asking price of Rs 500 to avail the aforesaid offer. The store manager

said that the offer is not valid in our case as we have not procured the lenses for the spectacle

frames to which we said that your advertisement was misleading thereby. There is no mention of

this condition and it's neither displayed anywhere within the store. After we have invested so

much time in selecting our frames, you are telling this to us. Just to honor our time, we paid the

full asking amount for the two frames but we feel that this advertisement need to be qualified

specially when it's stuck on the showroom main door.




request to respond to the same. The Advertiser was offered an opportunity for Personal Hearing

with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser had, however, not responded to ASCI’s request. The

CCC noted that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date

for this complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – promotional offer displayed at the advertiser’s

showroom, and upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any

comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “2 Pairs Rs 999

for Gold members”, was misleading by omission that the offer is available only on purchase of

2 pairs of spectacle frames with lenses, and subject to Terms and Conditions. The claim offer is

likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The Ad –

promotional offer contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was

UPHELD

COMPANY: Future Retail Limited (Big Bazaar)

Complaint:

Wednesday Bazar Vegetables at Rs 6 per 250g appeared in Times of India on Wednesday 18

July 2018. Picture in the advertisement showed prominently many vegetables that were not

covered under this price thus misleading the customers resulting in wastage of their time, energy

and money.

In addition I will further like to add the following:

The advertisement very prominently displays major items like 1 Phool gobhi, 2 Cabbage, 3

Bhindi, 4 Coconut, 5 Beans, 6 Carrot, 7 Lemon, 8 Cucumber, 9 Spinach and few others.

But the actual list sent by Big Bazar through sms does not include these items. Their SMS

message is reproduced below:

"Buy below Fresh Veggies @Rs 6/250g:

[Buy 1 Potato, 2 Bottle Gourd, 3 Beetroot, 4 Onion white, 5 Cucumber white, 6 Pumpkin red, 7

Tendli, 8 Chilli

green, 8 Brinjal Small / 9 Leafy bunch (per piece) - Spinach, Dhaniya &

Mint Leaves] Till 18-Jul.T&C"

It is evident from the above that the advertisement had included many costly items to attract the

customers when they had no intention to sell them at the specified price of Rs 6 per 250 gm.

Because of the misleading advertisement, we had to spend our time, energy and money to go to

Big Bazar store and had to return disappointed or buy them at higher prices.

Big Bazar have brought out similar advertisement today in Print media and TV with '* Offer

valid on select vegetables' which has already reported to you earlier is highly misleading since

most of items that appear in the advertisement are NOT in the selected list of vegetables.

You are requested to take appropriate action quickly to avoid misleading of consumers by Big

Bazar.

I had hoped that you would in fact ask Big Bazar to send the list of items covered under the

discount and compare them with the printed advertisement. A photo of the sms as received on

my mobile is attached. This includes date and time as well.

I hope you will take a prompt action to limit such misleading advertisements which cause

considerable inconvenience to customers.






had stated in their response that the pictures/images shown in the advertisement were general

pictorial representations. The advertisement mentioned that the pictures are for representation

purpose only, and the offer is valid on select vegetables. The vegetables sold at Rs.6 per 250 gm

included Potato Economy Pkd, Bottle Gourd Long, Beetroot pkd, Onion White, Cucumber White

pkd, Pumpkin red, Small Gourd pkd, Chilli Light Green, Brinjal Round Small Purple.

The CCC also viewed the SMS provided by the complainant which stated "Buy below Fresh

Veggies @Rs 6/250g: [Buy 1 Potato, 2 Bottle Gourd, 3 Beetroot, 4 Onion white, 5 Cucumber

white, 6 Pumpkin red, 7 Tendli, 8 Chilli green, 8 Brinjal Small / 9 Leafy bunch (per piece) -

Spinach, Dhaniya & Mint Leaves]. Till 18Jul.T&C".

The CCC viewed the print advertisement, SMS text and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC observed that several of the vegetables that appeared in the advertisement under the

discount offer did not feature in the selected list of vegetables which was conveyed via SMS to

the complainant. The CCC did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the visuals of some

of the vegetables (which were not part of the offer) were for representation purpose only since

several options depicted were not covered by the offer. Based on the evidence provided by the

complainant, and the offer being limited to only select vegetables, the CCC concluded that the

advertisement displaying - Phool Gobhi, Cabbage, Bhindi, Coconut, Beans, Carrot, Lemon,

Cucumber, Spinach, and few others under the discount offer of “Rs.6 per 250 g”, was false, and

a misrepresentation of facts. The visual is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI

Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Triveni Sangam Chaitanya Jagran

Claim Objected to:

“Cure all types of Ailments (Disease) Without Medicine.”

Complaint:

This advertise claims to ‘cure all types of ailments (disease) without medicine’ which I think can

create misguidance for people also let people think that diseases can be treated by without visting

doctor and medicines.. this may be serious heath hazard for the prople enlarge. I request you to

take immediate action not to use such puncy headlines and stop these kind of advertisements.

Phone numbers are being mentioned on the pamplet. I also think only a MCI recognised doctor

with valid degree and valid registration should only be able to treat diseases. This doctor

mentioned on the advertisement has claim to cure disease but has not mentioned his registration

number also ..Behind Sai Mandir, Takiya Ward, Bhandara. Maharashtra 441904.







complaint. The CCC viewed the Ad – Pamphlet which was an insert circulated with Times of

India, and observed that the it was for a promotion of a programme – seminar on solution for

health problem by Dr. Satish Sawarkar.

The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide any details of treatment procedure nor any

technical or scientific rationale for claiming cure of ailments.

Upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any comments or response

from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Cure all types of Ailments (Disease)

Without Medicine”, was not substantiated and is misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits

the consumers’ lack of knowledge and is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in

the minds of consumers. The Ad - Pamphlet contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI


COMPANY: Times Network Ltd (Times Now)

Complaint:

“On Air Promotion on Times Now on 02nd Aug'18 & Mailer on same Date.

Times Now has used sliced Target Group NCCS AB M22-50 AB & NCCS AB 22-50 to calculate

relative channel share to do promotion on channel & through mailer respectively. These sliced

Target Groups are not Permissible by BARC. Kindly take action on same.”






in their response denied the false allegations made in the complaint of using sliced Target Group

to claim leadership position.

The complaint was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the Ad – TV

promo and Ad – Mailer, and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of

Technical expert presented at the meeting.

The CCC observed that Ad – TV promo has qualified their leadership position based on BARC

source – NCCS AB Males 22-50 All India 1Min+ Wk 23-30’18 24 hrs Relative Share. The Ad

– mailer quoted the source as

NCCS AB 22-50 Wk 23-30’18 Relative Share basis imps’000.

The data is directionally correct as Times Now leads in both 22+ and 22-50 yrs audiences. The

Ad – TV promo and the Ad – Mailer was based on data for eight weeks Wk 23-30’18 to promote

the advertiser’s channel as No. 1 in English News genre. As the target group NCCS AB Males

22-50 can be directly queried from the BARC system, the CCC did not consider such reference

to be objectionable in the context of the advertisement. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Paytm E-Commerce Pvt Ltd

PRODUCT: Paytm

Complaint:






argued that the product listing under complaint is not an advertisement nor does it fall under the

definition of advertisement. The said product (Suzuki Access 125 SE CBS) was displayed by a

seller/merchant (Nuclear Motors Sales and Services Pvt Ltd) on PayTm Mall platform for sale

and not for advertisement purpose. The complainant placed an order in July 2018 and paid an

amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards booking amount. The order was to be fulfilled by the said

Merchant by delivering the product to the customer in August 2018. The said amount received

upon placement of Order was duly remitted by Paytm Mall to the Merchant. At the time of

delivery of the Product, the Customer was required to pay an additional amount pertaining to the

Registration charges, Road Taxes, Insurance Premium, etc. Advertiser provided a copy of the

Principal Display Page of the said product listing.

The CCC viewed the website advertisement (original complained screenshot as well as page

revised to include booking amount text) and considered the advertiser’s response. As per CCC,

ASCI Code's definition of Advertising states that "Any communication which in the normal

course would be recognised as an advertisement by the general public would be included in this

definition even if it is carried free-of-charge for any reason". Therefore promotion through

product listing on an online platform, paid or unpaid, has to be considered as Advertising. The

CCC noted that subsequent to receiving the complaint from ASCI, the advertiser had included a

description of “booking amount” against Rs 20,000.

The CCC concluded that the claim related to the price of the product (Suzuki Access 125 SE CBS

- Disc) quoted as Rs.20,000/- was misleading by ambiguity and omission to mention that it is

only a booking amount, with an additional convenience fees applicable. The visual is likely to

lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The website

advertisement contravened Chapter I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: K G Dholakiya

Claim

Objected To:

“Gujarat's No.1

School”








claim, “Gujarat's No.1 School”, was not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of

the advertiser’s institute and similar institutes in Gujarat, to prove that it is in leadership position

(No.1) than the rest, or through a third party validation. The source for the claim was not indicated

in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or


I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Mohak Bariatrics and Robotics

Claims Objected To:

1. Mohak Bariatrics has performed India & Asia’s highest No. of Obesity Surgeries.

2. With Robotic Banded Gastric Bypass you will not regain lost weight again.

3. 10 years more than 9000 patients have got freedom from obesity through Baratric surgery.

4. First time in India, get rid of obesity without surgery – with Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.




Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied seeking for informal resolution of the complaint.

On the advertiser’s request, they were provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission

via telecon which they did not avail.

Upon carefully viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and in the absence of

specific comments and claim support data, the CCC concluded that –

Claim, “Mohak Bariatrics has performed India & Asia’s highest No. of Obesity Surgeries”, was

not substantiated with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s clinic and other similar

clinics to prove that the obesity surgeries done by them (in India and Asia) were highest than the

rest.

Claim – “With Robotic Banded Gastric Bypass you will not regain lost weight again”, was not

substantiated with supporting clinical evidence or with treatment efficacy data.

Claim – “10 years more than 9000 patients have got freedom from obesity through Baratric

surgery”, was not substantiated with supporting data for 10 years, with evidence to prove that

more than 9000 patients suffering from obesity were successfully treated by the advertiser’s

clinic, or through a third party validation. Claim – “First time in India, get rid of obesity without

surgery – with Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty”, was False and misleading, as Endoscopic

Sleeve Gastroplasty is considered to be a form of surgery.

These claims exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread


I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Vcare’s Herbal Concepts Private Limited

PRODUCT: VCare's Premium Hair Tonik

Claims Objected To:

1. Premium Hair Tonic that stops hair fall immediately.

2. Specially formulated hair complex which will help your hair grow better than any other

ordinary hair oil.







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Premium

Hair Tonic that stops hair fall immediately”, was not substantiated with product efficacy data,

and is misleading by gross exaggeration.

Claim, “Specially formulated hair complex which will help your hair grow better than any other

ordinary hair oil”, was not substantiated with comparative data of the advertiser’s product and

other similar hair tonics, for product efficacy. These claims exploit consumers’ lack of

knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pakur Polytechnic

Claims Objected To:

1. Jharkhand’s No.1 Polytechnic Institution. (Source of the claim not mentioned)

2. Have facility for 100 percent placement.




Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The advertiser in their

response argued that they have never claimed themselves to be No.1 college of Jharkhand, nor

have they provided placement to any of their students. Their academic session started in 2016,

and the first batch would pass out in 2019. The advertiser further informed that the said TVC was

released by the concerned media (Kashish News) without their consent.

Upon carefully viewing the TVC, examining the complaint and the response given by the

advertiser, and in the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Jharkhand’s No.1 Polytechnic Institution”, was not substantiated with any verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) in Jharkhand than the rest, or through a third party validation, and is

misleading by exaggeration.

Claim, “Have facility for 100 percent placement”, implying guarantee for jobs, which is in fact

a future guarantee, is misleading by ambiguity and implication. The claims are likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened the



COMPANY: CBS Group of Institutes

Claim Objected To:

“Best Institute of Haryana”







of any comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best

Institute of Haryana”, was not substantiated with any market survey data, or verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Haryana, to prove that

it is better than the rest in providing the courses claimed, or through an independent third party

validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The TVC contravened the Guidelines for Advertising

of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.


COMPANY: Kavish Range of Products

PRODUCT: Kavish Royal Cream

Claims Objected To:

1. Remove dark circles, chronic freckles, chronic burn marks, chronic deep black marks,

chronic stretch marks, chronic acne marks from the roots permanently.

2. Get rid of smallpox marks and dark skin of neck completely.








claims, “Remove dark circles, chronic freckles, chronic burn marks, chronic deep black marks,

chronic stretch marks, chronic acne marks from the roots permanently”, and “Get rid of smallpox

marks and dark skin of neck completely”, were not substantiated with product efficacy data. The

claims read in conjunction with the visuals showing efficacy being depicted via images of before

and after the treatment, are misleading by gross exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or


I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Ltd

PRODUCT: Lever Ayush Natural Fairness Saffron Face cream

Claims Objected to:

1. A fairness treatment formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom.

2. The rich blend of Saffron and Kumkumadi Tailam is known to cure marks and lighten

skin complexion

Complaint:

1. Reference to claims 1 and 2 please substantiate with claim support data. The claim

support data should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Hindustan

Unilever.

2. Reference to claim 1 and 2;these are not generic claims and therefore should be

substantiated by independent data and not just be assertions.

3. Reference to claim 2; is the amount of the ingredients Saffron and Kumkumadi Tailam

significant to make an impact on the performance of the product as claimed, is the

efficacy data specific to the benefits of the formulation attributable to the claimed

ingredients provided?

4. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form is similar to textual

preparation/s or has the effectiveness of each and all of the ingredients as is being

claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients appear to have symbolic presence in

the product?

5. The name Ayush can confuse a consumer to think that it is certified by Ministry of

AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy). Has

Ministry of AYUSH certified this product and permitted the advertisers to use the

name? If no, then it is grossly misleading.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code Action to be

taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”





with the ASCI Secretariat which they availed and subsequently submitted their written

response. The advertiser in their response referred to 58 ayurvedic granthas which form the

basis of Ayurveda and are relied upon by the ayurvedic doctors or vaidyas. Basis authentic

prescriptions recited in these granthas, the Advertiser has developed the range of ayurvedic

products. These 58 Ayurvedic Granthas are duly recognized by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

1940.

Advertiser further stated that the product is an Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine and the key

ayurvedic ingredients in the Product is basis text in authentic ayurvedic granthas and their

prescribed benefits as per ayurvedic text. Saffron is an ayurvedic herb with great medicinal value

known and recommended for its brightening and healing properties, and Kumkumadi tailam is a

unique blend of 14 herbs and oil, formulated to cure marks, lighten skin colour and improve skin

quality.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided Copy of product label along with product

composition, Relevant extracts of the annual report 2013-14 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH,

Relevant extracts of the authentic ayurvedic texts for saffron and Kumkumadi Tailam, Letter from

Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Limited confirming presence of ayurvedic ingredients in

the Product, Letter from a researcher in Ayurveda, certifying that the ingredients in the Product

are from ancient ayurvedic texts and the Product is capable of delivering the benefits of such

ingredients.


website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of


The CCC observed that the claim refers to 5000 years of ayurvedic wisdom whereas the

Ayurvedic texts being referred in the advertiser’s response, are not 5000 years old. The Advertiser

has not proven that the product as sold in its present form is similar to classical textual

preparation/s or has the effectiveness of each of the ingredients as is being claimed in the

advertisement. The CCC noted that Kumkumadi tailam, where kumkum is the main ingredient

which is only 10 mg per 10 gm of the product. The CCC considered this quantity to be too less

when compared with what is prescribed traditionally to provide the benefit as claimed for the

said ingredient/s. Furthermore, Saffron – 1mg per 10 gm, Lodhra – 71.3 mg per 10 gm, and

Manjishtha – 142 mg per 10 gm are exracts and not raw as used in traditional system and therefore

claims based on classical dosage forms are less relevant. While the advertiser in their response

assert about the benefits of each ingredient for their individual efficacy, no substantiation was

provided for the advertised product. No technical rationale was provided to show impact of the

quantities of saffron (1mg per 10 gm) and Kumkumadi tailam (10 mg per 10 gm) on the

performance of the products and the method/s that were used to retain its natural attributes. The

CCC noted that the advertiser has not provided any product efficacy data for their formulation

specific to the benefits attributed to the claimed ingredients such as curing of marks and

lightening of skin complexion.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “A fairness treatment formulated

with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom” and “The rich blend of Saffron and Kumkumadi Tailam

is known to cure marks and lighten skin complexion”, were inadequately substantiated. The

claims are misleading by implication and exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The website advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.


PRODUCT: Lever Ayush Whitening Toothpaste with rocksalt

Claims Objected to:

1. Formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom.

2. It contains Rock Salt (Sendha Namak),known since centuries as a powerful solution for

whitening of teeth

3. Contains Arimedas Tailam known to be extremely effective in making teeth healthy.

Complaint:

1. Reference to claims 1 to 3 please substantiate with claim support data. The claim

support data should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Hindustan

Unilever.

2. Reference to claim 1 and 2; these are not generic claims and therefore should be


3. Reference claims 2 and 3; is the effect same for everyone irrespective of genetic

conditions, lifestyle and gender. Please substantiate.

4. eference to claim 2 and 3; is the amount of the ingredients significant to make an impact

on the performance of the product as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the

benefits of the formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients provided?

5. Can the advertiser prove that the products sold in its present form is similar to textual



the product?






taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.






advertiser in their response referred to 58 ayurvedic granthas which form the basis of Ayurveda

and are relied by the ayurvedic doctors or vaidyas. Basis authentic prescriptions recited in these

granthas, the Advertiser has developed the range of ayurvedic products. These 58 Ayurvedic

Granthas are duly recognized by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, which governs Ayurvedic

products in India, under First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Advertiser further stated that the product is an Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicines and the key

ayurvedic ingredients in the Product as picked up basis text in authentic ayurvedic granthas and

their prescribed benefits as per ayurvedic text. Rock Salt (sendha namak): is prescribed in

Ayurveda as the healthiest form of salt and is known since centuries as a powerful solution for

whitening of teeth; Arimedas Tailam: is a classical formulation, made using 38 natural herbs,

which are known to make teeth stronger and prevent tooth decay. As claim support data, the

advertiser provided Copy of product label along with product composition, extracts of the annual

report 2013-14 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH, extracts of the authentic ayurvedic texts for

Rock Salt (Sendha Namak) and Arimedas Tailam, Letter from Arya Vaidya Pharmacy

(Coimbatore) Limited confirming presence of ayurvedic ingredients in the Product, Letter from

a researcher in Ayurveda, certifying that the ingredients in the Product are from ancient ayurvedic

text and the Product is capable of delivering the benefits of such ingredients.





Ayurvedic texts being referred in the advertiser’s response, are not 5000 years old. Advertiser

has not proven that the product as sold in its present form is similar to classical textual

preparation/s or has the effectiveness of each of the ingredients as is being claimed in the

advertisement.

The CCC noted that the claims based on tradition of Ayurveda, support from traditional

practitioners, validation of Arya Vaidya Pharmacy and such are not relevant as the ingredients

Rock Salt is 1mg per 10 gm and Arimedas Tailam is 5 mg per 10 gm. Quantity of these

constituents of the formulation are practically negligible to give claimed benefits and such

meagre quantities are not justifiable. While the advertiser in their response assert about the

benefits of each ingredient for their individual efficacy, no substantiation was provided to show

impact in terms of the quantities of Rock salt (1mg per 10 gm) and Arimedas Tailam (5 mg per

10 gm) on the performance of the advertised product and the method/s that were used to retain

its natural attributes. The CCC noted that the advertiser has not provided any product efficacy

data for their formulation specific to the benefits attributable to the claimed ingredients such as

whitening of teeth and making the teeth healthy.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Formulated with 5000 years of

Ayurvedic wisdom”, “It contains Rock Salt (Sendha Namak), known since centuries as a

powerful solution for whitening of teeth”, and “Contains Arimedas Tailam known to be

extremely effective in making teeth healthy”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are

misleading by implication and exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1,

I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd.

PRODUCT: Pankaj Kasturi Breathe Easy

Claims objected to:

1. A combination of 15 Herbs and natural ingredients in specific composition has been

formulated by us.

2. It’s unique and time tested traditional yet Ayurvedic formula harnesses phyto nutrients and

antioxidants like xanthones which helps building immunity, thereby improving the ability to

breathe well.

3. The herbal formulation is completely safe and is without any side effects.

Objection:

1. Reference to claims1 - 3 please substantiate with claim support data.The claim support data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by PankajKasturi.

2. Is the amount of the 15 unique herbsphyto nutrients and antioxidants like xanthones,

significant to make an impact on the performance of the product as claimed? Is the efficacy

data specific to the benefits of the formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients

provided?

3. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness of

each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients


4. Does it have approval from Ministry of AYUSH? Please substantiate.

5. Reference to claim 1 it states, formulated by us whereas claim 2 mentions, Its unique and

time tested traditional yet Ayurvedic formula both the statements are contradictory.



Link of Ad: http://www.pankajakasthuri.in/otc/pankajakasthuri-breathe-eazy





with the ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The

advertiser argued that the content under complaint is the product description on their website

and not any form of advertisement for the product.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy of the drug license issued by the

Department of Ayush, Government of Kerala for the product, Clinical trial reports for effect

of the product in patients suffering from cold, cough, and breathing difficulties, Monograph on

the product, and Copy of Toxicity studies on the product.

http://www.pankajakasthuri.in/otc/pankajakasthuri-breathe-eazy








Technical expert presented at the meeting. As per the CCC, ASCI Code's definition of

Advertising states that "Any communication which in the normal course would be recognized

as an advertisement by the general public would be included in this definition even if it is

carried free-of-charge for any reason." Therefore promotion vide product listing on the website,

paid or unpaid, has to be considered as Advertising.

The CCC observed that as per the composition of the tablets, it had 14 ingredients and not 15

as claimed. As per the quoted study, the product appeared to have benefit in case of bronchial

asthma; However it was incorrect to make absolute claims regarding safety / efficacy of the

product such as “completely safe and without any side effects” since as per the data submitted,

10% volunteers had dropped out of the study and 57% of the volunteers did experience

hyperacidity and related symptoms.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “A combination of 15 Herbs and

natural ingredients in specific composition has been formulated by us”, “Its unique and time

tested traditional yet Ayurvedic formula harnesses phyto nutrients and antioxidants like

xanthones which helps building immunity, thereby improving the ability to breathe well”, and

“The herbal formulation is completely safe and is without any side effects”, were inadequately

substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.

The website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. The complaint

was UPHELD


PRODUCT: Lever Ayush Antimarks Turmeric Faeccream

Claims Objected to:

1. A skin care treatment formulated with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom from the

'granthas'. 2. The purifying properties of Turmeric (haldi) are known to enhance

complexion

3. Kumkumadi Tailam is known to cure marks.

Complaint:

Objection:

1. Reference to claims 1-3 please substantiate with claim support data. The claim support

data should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Hindustan Unilever.

2. Reference to claim 1-3; these are not generic claims and therefore should be


3. Reference to claims 2 and 3; is the amount of the ingredients particularly Kumkumadi

Tailam significant to make an impact on the performance of the product as claimed?

Kumkumadi Tailam is a very expensive oil. Is the quantity used significant to ‘cure

marks’ as claimed? Is the efficacy data specific to the benefits of the formulation


4. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form is similar to textual



the product?






taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”






advertiser in their response referred to 58 ayurvedic granthas which form the basis of Ayurveda

and are relied upon by the ayurvedic doctors or vaidyas. Basis authentic prescriptions recited in

these granthas, the Advertiser has developed the range of ayurvedic products. Advertiser further

stated that these 58 Ayurvedic Granthas are duly recognized by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

1940. The product is an Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine and the key ayurvedic ingredients in

the Product as picked up basis text in authentic ayurvedic granthas and their prescribed benefits

as per ayurvedic text. Turmeric is prescribed in Ayurveda for purification and also well known

for its antiseptic and healing properties. Kumkumadi tailam is a unique blend of 14 (fourteen)

herbs and oil, formulated to cure marks, lighten skin colour and improve skin’s quality. The

reference of Turmeric and benefits of Turmeric in treating the skin related issues is also found in

Atharvaveda, the 5000 years old and first ayurvedic grantha. As claim support data, the advertiser

provided Copy of product label along with product composition, extracts of the authentic

ayurvedic texts for Turmeric and Kumkumadi Tailam, extract of Atharvaveda, Letter from Arya

Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Limited confirming presence of ayurvedic ingredients in the

Product and their benefits, Letter from a researcher in Ayurveda, certifying that the ingredients

in the Product are from ancient ayurvedic text and the Product is capable to delivering the benefits

of such ingredients. The claim support data was reviewed by the technical expert of ASCI. The

CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the

opinion of Technical expert presented at the meeting.


advertiser did not provide details regarding the specific scriptures that are 5000 years old since

Ayurvedic texts being referred in the advertiser’s response, is not 5000 years old. Advertiser has

not proven that the product as sold in its present form is similar to textual preparation/s or has the

effectiveness of each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the

ingredients appear to have symbolic presence in the product. A skin care treatment formulated

with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom from the Granthas is irrelevant as the ingredients used,

Kumkumadi Tailam 10 mg per 10 gm is much less, practically negligible, as against prescribed

in the texts Grantha to have claimed effect as an ingredient. Similarly quantity of Turmeric

(haldi) is only 10 mg as extract per 10 gm, for claimed purifying properties to enhance

complexion. Turmeric is used raw as described in Ayurveda for its varnya – complexion

promoting activity. Effect of the extracted material in the said quantity is not justifiable for its

complexion promoting efficacy.

The claims based on tradition of Ayurveda, support from traditional practitioners, validation of

Arya Vaidya Pharmacy and such are not relevant as the ingredients Turmeric is 10 mg per 10

gm, and Kumkumadi Tailam 10 mg per 10 gm. Quantity of these constituents of the formulation

are practically negligible to give claimed benefits. The ingredient content is miniscule which is

misleading by quantum of ingredient present. While the advertiser in their response stated

benefits of each ingredient for their individual efficacy no substantiation was provided in terms

of quantities of Turmeric (10 mg per 10 gm.) and Kumkumadi Tailam (10 mg per 10 gm) used,

which is significant to make an impact on the performance of the product as claimed, and the

method/s that were used to retain its natural attributes. The CCC noted that the advertiser has not

provided any product efficacy data for their formulation specific to the benefits attributable to

the claimed ingredients.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “A skin care treatment formulated

with 5000 years of Ayurvedic wisdom from the granthas”, and “The purifying properties of

Turmeric (haldi) are known to enhance complexion”, and “Kumkumadi Tailam is known to cure

marks”, were inadequately substantiated.

The claims are misleading by implication and exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or

widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The website advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Apcos Naturals

PRODUCT: Just Herbs

Claims Objected to:

1. Our Fair’e skin lightening gel and A’ffair skin lightening cream help in getting rid of

dark spot and patches

2. The herbs present in them detoxify the blood and boost circulation to fade freckles and

skin discolorations thus making the skin tone more even toned and giving it a lighter

appearance

Complaint

1. Reference to claims 1 and 2; please substantiate with claim support data. The data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Apcos Naturals.

2. Reference to claim 2; which are the herbs present in them? Is the amount of herbs

significant to make an impact on the performance of the product as claimed? Is the

efficacy data specific to the benefits of the formulation attributable to the claimed

ingredient provided?


has the effectiveness of the herbs as is being claimed in the advertisement since the

ingredient appears to have symbolic presence in the product?

4. The advertiser needs to substantiate the claims with third party data as they are specific

to this product and not GENERIC.

5. The post begins with “Many of our customers ask us if we have something to make their

skin fair and we say that we do not support it. However we do have something for skin

lightening?! This is grossly misleading the consumer as the product is definitely

working towards giving a fairer skin. It claims “giving a lighter appearance? “Skin

lightening? Which are alternative words for skin fairness.









complaint. The CCC viewed the Facebook advertisement. The CCC observed that the advertiser

did not submit any product specific details such as composition / licence / pack artwork or

samples and approval from the concerned regulatory authorities for all the claims being made in

the advertisement. Upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of any

comments or response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Our Fair’s skin

lightening gel and Affair skin lightening cream help in getting rid of dark spot and patches”, was

not substantiated with product efficacy data.

Claim, “The herbs present in them detoxify the blood and boost circulation to fade freckles and

skin discolorations thus making the skin tone more even toned and giving it a lighter appearance”,

was not substantiated with any evidence of the ingredients present in the product and with

specific benefits attributable to the ingredients responsible for the claimed efficacy of the product.

The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The Facebook advertisement contravened Chapters


COMPANY: Hope Ayurvedic Medicines Pvt Ltd

Complaint:

The advertisement says that it is a patented Medicine by government of India & can be used In

all types of cancer, hiv/ aids, all blood Related diseases, renal diseases, depression, Migrain pain,

geriatric blood diseases, to Increase platelets in dengue & all those Diseases which are not relived

by any other Medicines except the bone diseases.

This is totally false to say that government of India has awarded any patent for Ayurvedic drug

which is useful in all the Conditions, hence it is a false advertisement. And a clear case of

misleading common people In the name of ayurved as well as patent by Government of India.

This advt is published in today's loksatta, marathi daily from Mumbai edition.

Having stated that the medicine is patented by government of India for such a veriety of diseases.

The claim cannot be supported by website /email & telephone call to given number does not

yield any information. Please take the appropriate action.






had stated in their response that their medicines are herbal and 100% organic and 100% natural.

These medicines do not have any types of steroids and metallic dust. The medicines being very

effective on all types of claimed diseases, have been beneficial for patients. The advertisement

nowhere claims cure for diseases nor does it violate Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Ayurved

being an Indian culture, this culture is used more outside India.

Upon viewing the print advertisement, examining the complaint and the response given by the

advertiser, the CCC observed that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about their

medicines. Advertiser did not provide copy of product label, copy of Product approval / FDA

license, Product composition details, evidence of the ingredients present in the product, nor any

scientific data or any study done with the product that demonstrated the effectiveness of the

medicine for the claimed diseases. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that

the claims (in Marathi) as translated in English, “can be used in all types of Cancer, HIV/AIDS,

all Blood related diseases, Renal diseases, Depression, Migraine pain, Geriatric blood diseases,

to

Increase platelets in dengue, and all those Diseases which are not relived by any other

Medicines”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by

implication that this medicine works even when all other treatment fails.

Claim, “Patented medicine by Government of India”, was not substantiated with supporting

evidence of Government of India having granted patent for their ayurvedic medicines, and is

misleading by exaggeration.

These claims also exploits the consumers’ lack of knowledge and are likely to lead to grave or




PRODUCT: Pepsodent Toothpaste

Claims Objected to:

1. New Pepsodent Germicheck Cavity Protection

2. 12 hr Germi check

3. Aap apna toothpaste badaliye

Complaint:

1. Reference to claims 1 and 2, please substantiate the claim with claim support data. The

claim support data should not be based on internal studies or studies commissioned by

Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

2. Reference claim 1;as per ASCI guidelines of claiming New/Improved, The words New

/Improved must specify what aspect of the product/service is new or improved - viz the

product's utility, function, product design, package design, etc. Also, the word “new?,

“improved? or an 'improvement' of a product may be used in advertisements only for a

period of one (1) year from the time the new or improved product/service has been

launched/introduced in the market.

3. Using a child in the advertisement and then claiming “hunger mitane ke liye chocolate

khaane ka bahana toh nahi badlega. Aap apna toothpaste badaliye? is promoting the

unhealthy habit of eating chocolates for satiating hunger among children. Pepsodent is

also giving free chocolate with their pack. This will lure kids to force their parents into

buying the product. It will not stop at one chocolate but result into children consuming

calorie dense, nutrient poor food. Since the advertisement says “hunger mitane ke liye

chocolate khaane ka bahana toh nahi badlega? children will indulge into persuading

parents to buy chocolates and ultimately lead to cavities.

4. Pepsodent on one hand states that ‘hunger mitane ke liye chocolate khaane ka bahana

toh nahi badlega.’ And then gives a chocolate bar ‘Free’ with the toothpaste which

claims Germicheck+ cavity protection. This is absolutely unethical on the part of

HUL. The company is indirectly promoting the message that children can continue to

eat chocolates (the company offers free chocolates) as they are protected by Pepsodent

‘Germicheck+ cavity protection’. This is irresponsible and unhealthy marketing.

In Feb 2018, 9 food companies signed MoU with FSSAI pledging their support not to

advertise junk food to children. HUL is one of them.

5. At a time when Government of India, is making all efforts for reduction of HFSS foods

in children, by proposing the prohibition of junk foods in school canteens, HUL is

completely negating these efforts, by its insensitive, irresponsible marketing techniques.

Informatively the list of 12 foods proposed to be banned in school canteens includes

chocolates!! In February 2018, FSSAI has released a draft notification addressing this

issue.

6. Reference to claim 3; the advertisement violates the ASCI clause which states ,‘the

advertisement does not unfairly denigrate, attack or discredit other products advertisers

or advertisements directly or by implication and the comparisons are factual, accurate

and capable of substantiation’.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.4, 4.1 (c), 4.1(e) of ASCI code

and ASCI guidelines of validity and duration of claiming new/improved.





ASCI Secretariat which they availed, and subsequently submitted their written response.

Claim - “New Pepsodent Germicheck Cavity Protection” - Advertiser stated that New Pepsodent

Germicheck was introduced in January 2018. This toothpaste formulation has the proprietary

technology of Cetyl Pyridinium Chloride (CPC) - Clay which is being used for the first time. The

change in product formulation has been communicated on the product packaging as “New

Formula”, and the ingredient list features the new ingredients - Natural Clay and Cetyl

Pyridinium Chloride (CPC).

Advertiser provided a copy of the product label artwork, and a video on CPC Clay Technology.

For the product efficacy, the advertiser stated that Pepsodent Germicheck is formulated with

Calcium Carbonate and Sodium Monofluoro Phosphate equivalent to 1000 ppm of fluoride for

cavity protection. Fluoride helps strengthen teeth by enhancing remineralization and reducing

the effect of demineralization. Advertiser provided literature reference on caries prevention by

fluoride.

Claim - “12 hr Germi check” - Advertiser stated that the efficacy of formulation in providing

protection against germs for 12 hours is proven through the study - Ànti bacterial effect of a

Novel CPC-Clay containing toothpaste’. This study showed that toothpaste with 1.5% CPC-

Clay had comparable antibacterial activity to a marketed toothpaste with 0.3% Triclosan at 12

hour time point.

Advertiser provided a report on Anti-bacterial effect of Toothpaste containing 1.5%

Cetylpyridinium ChlorideClay (CPC-Clay). The 1.5% CPC-clay toothpaste had significantly

lower levels of bacteria present 12 hours post brushing as compared to the negative control

toothpaste and parity to positive control.

Based on the advertiser’s response with the supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that

the claims, “New Pepsodent Germicheck Cavity Protection”, and “12 hr Germi check”, were

substantiated.

Claim – “Aap apna toothpaste badaliye” – Advertiser stated that this statement is more like a call

to action wherein consumers are called to try their new proprietary technology. The CCC did

not consider this statement to be disparaging.

As for the objection raised against free chocolate bar being given along with the 300g pack of

the product, the advertiser stated that this is part of a one off promotional offer which was

exclusively run at one of the select channels in modern trade. The CCC did not agree with the

complainant’s objection that the advertisement is against the pledge with respect to not

advertising junk food to children since the advertisement is not of a chocolate but is of a

toothpaste. Marketing of chocolates is not prohibited and presenting a toothpaste that helps

address cavity problems by providing a 12 hour protection was not objectionable.

In this context the CCC did not consider this promotional offer to be in contravention of the

ASCI code. The complaint was NOT UPHELD.

COMPANY: Institute of Advance Network Technology (IANT institute)

Claims Objected To:

1. 100% Job Guarantee*

2. India’s No. 1 Hardware, Networking, Software, Cyber security, Ethical Hacking &

Disruptive Technologies Training Institute.

3. Earn a Job starting from Rs. 1,20,000 to 6,00,000* as per courses.

Complaint:

Our objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1, 2 and 3 with claim support data. The claim support data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by IANT Institute of Advance

Network Technology.

2. The terms and conditions associated with claims 1 and 3 are not given. Hence it is

misleading by means of omission.

3. Ref. to claim 2, Is there data to show how IANT compares with other Training

Institutes? Is the claim substantiated with any market survey data or verifiable

comparative data of advertiser’s services with other competitive services? Is there any

third party validation to prove these claims? Is the credibility and authenticity of the

certifying bodies well established?

4. Ref. to claim 3, is Rs. 1,20,000 minimum amount earned after completing any course

with IANT? If yes, Please substantiate.

5. The advertisement violates ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions

and Programs 2(a) and 3 of ASCI code.

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1, 1.4 and Guidelines for Advertising

of Educational Institutions and Programs 2(a) and 3 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We

propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.





ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. As the response

was inadequate, ASCI requested the advertiser to provide supporting data for the claims made.

Advertiser did not provide this data in time for the CCC. Upon viewing the print advertisement,

examining the complaint and the response given by the advertiser, the

CCC observed that the advertiser’s response has only assertions about their institute and the

programmes/trainings offered by them.

Claim – “100% Job Guarantee*” – Advertiser stated that the said claim is conditional which is

explained to the student before starting the course. There are 6 global certification examinations

which the student needs to pass, and also they need to attend 80% of the scheduled lectures. The

students who fulfill these criterion are given a job. Advertiser provided relevant extract of the

Brochure of their institute.

In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that claim, “100% 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



disappointment in the minds of consumers.

Claim – “India’s No.1 Hardware, Networking, software, cyber security, ethical hacking and

disruptive technologies training institute”, - In response to this objection, the advertiser stated

that The Computing

Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) has declared the advertiser’s institute as No.1 in

whole of Asia Pacific Region (APAC) for highest number of students passing global certification

exam. RedHat APAC, a leading high end technology solution provider has also conferred the

APAC No.1 award to the advertiser’s institute. Advertiser provided a copy of the award

certificate of RedHat APAC, News coverage of the institute with photographs of the award

function displayed on WhatsApp.

The CCC observed that the Advertiser did not provide a copy of the award certificate of

CompTIA, 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, and the credibility and

authenticity of these certifying bodies. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “India’s No.1 Hardware, Networking, software, cyber security, ethical hacking

and disruptive technologies training institute”, was not substantiated and is misleading by


consumers.

Claim – “Earn a Job starting from Rs.1,20,000 to Rs. 6,00,000* as per courses” - Advertiser

stated that students can earn these per annum salaries based on the courses they choose. An

undergraduate student earns Rs. 10000 pm or 1.2 lacs per annum, while an Engineering students

opting gets Rs.50000/- salary.

The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide supporting evidence to prove that students

were offered the claimed salary packages, with detailed list of students who have been provided

placements through their Institute, contact details of students for verification, and job offer letters

received by the students.

In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Earn a Job starting from

Rs.1,20,000 to Rs. 6,00,000* as per courses”, was not substantiated and is misleading by


consumers. The print advertisement contravened

Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters, I.1, I.4

and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD

COMPANY: Seniority Ltd.

PRODUCT: Aayu Copper Bottle

Claims:

1. The Aayu - pure copper bottle aids weight loss, boosts cardiac health, slows down

ageing and fights cancer.

2. It also kills all microrganisms & prevents spread of water borne disease

Objections:

1. Reference to claims 1and 2 please substantiate with claim support data. The claim

support data should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Aayu.

2. Are these the properties of copper or specific to the product?

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action to be


We approached the concerned e portal Senority.in. They informed us that they would respond to

our mail within 48 hours i.e. by 16 July. We have not received any response from them. We

therefore request ASCI to process our complaint. Attached is the email correspondence with them

along with the copy of the advertisement.”







complaint. The CCC viewed the Facebook advertisement and upon careful consideration of the


concluded that the claims, “The Aayu - pure copper bottle aids weight loss, boosts cardiac health,

slows down ageing and fights cancer”, and “It also kills all microrganisms & prevents spread of

water borne disease”, were not substantiated with any scientific rationale or technical tests. The

claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The Facebook advertisement contravened Chapters



PRODUCT: Sunsilk Thick and Long

Complaint:

Description: The ad begins with a few friends taking Alia Bhatt for a surprise after her shoot.

They ask her to style her hair. Alia shows them different hair styles but her friends reject them.

Voiceover about the product is played- Sunsilk Thick and Long with Keratin yogurt gives you

2x thicker hair. The ad ends with the friends taking Alia to her surprise Birthday party. The

tagline “Jab baal ho thick, any style karo pick? Is played. Language: Hindi

Claims:

1. With keratin yogurt

2. 2x thicker hair

Objections:

1. Please substantiate claims 1 and 2 with claim support data. The claim support data

should not be internal or based on studies commissioned by Hindustan Unilever

Limited.



the formulation attributable to the claimed ingredients provided?




4. Reference to claim 2; the disclaimer says, “Based on lab test with Sunsilk Thick &

Long shampoo and conditioner vs. unclean hair.? How can comparison be made

between unclean hair and hair which is shampooed and conditioned? This is a grossly

misleading comparison.

5. A disclaimer appears for duration of less than 4 seconds. This violates the ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers.

6. Actress Alia Bhatt endorses the product. As per the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in

Advertising, a Celebrity should do due diligence to ensure that all description, claims

and comparisons made in the advertisements they appear in or endorse are capable of

being objectively ascertained and capable of substantiation and should not mislead or

appear deceptive. The claims made by the celebrity (Alia Bhatt) in this advertisement

violate this clause of the ASCI guidelines. Can the advertiser show evidence that the

actress Alia Bhatt has done due diligence and that she confirms with all the claims made

in the advertisement?

7. The claim made by the advertiser “With keratin yogurt? is not generic but specific. The

advertiser has to substantiate the claim

According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI Code and the ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers and Celebrities in Advertising. Action to be taken: We propose that

the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.





ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but submitted their written response. The CCC viewed

the TVC and considered the advertiser’s response. For the objection raised against the claim,

“Sunsilk thick and long with keratin yogurt”, the advertiser stated that the formulation contains

hydrolyzed keratin and yogurt extract. Advertiser provided a copy of the product label.

The claim, “2x thicker looking hair”, is made based on an Image Analysis (IA) data which proved

that hair washed with Sunsilk shampoo and conditioner showed two times higher visible hair

volume as compared to unwashed/unclean hair. The product claim is not associated with presence

of keratin yogurt and is made basis use of shampoo and conditioner which gives volume to hair

on washing when compared with unwashed/unclean hair. The benefit of two times thicker

looking hair is attributed to the product as a whole and not to any particular ingredient in its

formulation. Advertiser provided a copy of the Image Analysis report.

Based on the advertiser’s response with the supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that

the claims, “Sunsilk thick and long with keratin yogurt”, and “2x thicker looking hair”, were

substantiated.

However the disclaimer, “Based on lab test with Sunsilk Thick and Long shampoo and

conditioner vs unclean hair”, qualifying the comparative claim, “2x thicker looking hair”, was

not positioned in close proximity of the claim.

The disclaimers were not legible and were not in the same language as the audio of the TVC

(Hindi). The hold duration of the disclaimer on the screen was not for more than 4 seconds.

The TVC contravened Clauses 4 (I) (V), (VII) and (X) of ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers. This


For the objection raised against the use of Celebrity (Alia Bhatt) in the TVC, the advertiser stated

that the celebrity had done her due diligence with respect to the credibility of the claims shown

in the TVC. The CCC observed that 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, nor any Testimonials, or any

evidence of the consent of the celebrity for the product efficacy claims. This contravenes Clauses

(c), (d) of the Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Cadila Healthcare Ltd

PRODUCT: Nutralite Mayo

Claim Objected To:

“Healthier”




Secretariat which they did not avail. Further on the advertiser’s request, they were provided with

an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon, at which time the advertiser sought for

Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint. However, they did not submit the necessary

undertaking. Therefore the complaint was taken forward for CCC deliberations. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser did not submit any product

specific details such as composition / pack artwork or samples and FSSAI approval. In the

absence of specific comments with claim support data, the CCC concluded that the product

claiming to be “Healthier”, was not substantiated with comparative technical data or scientific

rationale and was misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission of the mention of the basis

of comparison. The claims is likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the minds

of consumers the advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The


COMPANY: Nestle India Ltd

PRODUCT: Nestle Ceregrow

Claims objected to:

1. Each bowl full of iron and nutrients

2. Tumne pet bharkekhiladia but muscle bharke nahi

3. She feeds her to stomach full and not immunity full

Complaint:

The advt begins with a father feeding his child and showing off proudly to his wife on video chat

to which his wife Tumne pet bharke khiladia but muscle bharkenahi. The same lady is seen in a

lab coat in the next scene where a mother asks her that despite feeding her daughter properly she

falls sick to which she says that she feeds her to stomach full and not immunity full. The doctor

says that kids stomach is small as a fist so it is easy to fill it but not easy to provide proper

nutrition. She advises the use of Nestle Ceregrow with each bowl full of iron and nutrients.

Objections:

1. Please substantiate the claim with claim support data. The claim support data should not be

internal or based on studies commissioned by Nestle India Ltd.

2. Is the amount of iron and nutrients significant to make an impact on the performance of the

product as claimed? Was the efficacy data specific to the benefits of the formulation


3. Can the advertiser prove that the product as sold in its present form has the effectiveness of

each and all of the ingredients as is being claimed in the advertisement since the ingredients


4. Claims 2 and 3 imply that if Nestle ceregrow is not given than the child will not have muscle

bharke and immunity full feeds. Can the advertiser substantiate that another foods given by

the father and mother as shown in the TVC are not adequate?

5. Claims 2 and 3 Is the advertiser trying to portray the product as a meal replacement? As per

ASCI guidelines for Food and Beverages and as per a FSSAI Draft Notification on

Advertisements and Claims Regulation, 2018, Advertisements in respect of a food product that

undermines the importance of healthy lifestyles or portrays the food product as a complete

replacement of normal meal are not permitted

6. The draft regulation non Advertisements and Claims Regulation, 2018 by FSSAI, also states,

that it shall specify the number of servings of the food per day for the claimed benefit. The

claim that a food has a certain nutritional or health attributes shall be scientifically

substantiated by validated methods of quantifying the ingredient or substance that is the basis

for the claim.

7. Is the doctor in the advertisement genuine and unpaid ? Please substantiate.

8. The Disclaimer is not legible. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter 1.1 and

1.4 of ASCI code, ASCI code for Disclaimer, ASCI code Guidelines for Food and Beverages

and Draft notification of FSSAI on Advertisements and Claims Regulation, 2018.






Advertiser in their response stated that a bowl of Ceregrow (i.e. 50g Ceregrow powder+ 130ml

of water) is a source of 15 vitamins & minerals. The 15 nutrients claimed meets the claim

condition mentioned in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition and Health Claims along with the

draft claim guidelines by FSSA1. Per serve of Ceregrow meets minimum 15% of the RDA

(Recommended Dietary Allowances) for children 2-5 years of age. One bowl of Ceregrow (50g)

provides 6.5g of protein which meets 39% of the daily requirements of 2-3 year old child and

32% of the daily requirements of 4-5 year old child. One serve of Ceregrow provides 2.25mg of

iron which meets 25% of the daily iron requirements of a 2- 3 year old child and 17% of the daily

requirement of a 4-5 year old child. The communication does not portray the product as a meal

replacement, but is recommended to be consumed as part of a varied balanced diet for a 2-5

year old child.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided Soft copy product Label along with product

Composition, Product Approval License from Regulatory Authority, Product analysis report,

Relevant extracts of National Institute of Nutrition, 2004, Dietetics, 7th Edition, Nutritional &

Food Requirements for Preschool Children, Nutrition Science, 6th Edition, Nutrition and Health

Claims, Indian Journal of Pediatrics, Literature references on Controlling Iron Deficiency

Anemia Through The Use of Home-fortified Complementary Foods, Nutrient requirements and

Recommended Dietary allowances for Indians, ICMR, 2010, and FSSAI (Claims and

advertisement) Regulations, 2018


advertisement and considered the Advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of Technical

expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that the explanation for the claim of “Poora

Poshan” given by the Advertiser is contradictory. On one side they claim that Proteins are 38%

and Vitamins and Minerals are 15% of RDA for the age for which the product is made and not

100% RDA to justify the claim “Poora Poshan”. This is misleading because Consumer mothers

may think that one bowl is enough of daily nutrition of their child between 2 to 5 years. There

was no substantiation or indication in the TVC that the feeding by father or the mother whose

daughter falls ill, is lacking in muscle making Proteins or in Immunity giving vitamins and

minerals. The protagonist (nutritionist) mother seems to be presuming that the said feeding is

wrong. This too will misguide a consumer mother to feel that anything except Ceregrow is

unlikely to provide “poora poshan”. There was no clear guidance in the TVC or the Pack about

whether it is replacement or a supplement to normal food. The TVC implies that if Ceregrow is

not given than the child will not have “muscle bharke” and “immunity barke” feeds. The TVC

does not specify the number of servings of the food per day for the claimed benefit.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Pet bharke to khila diya, par

muscle bharke nahi khilaya”, “Pet bharke toh khilati hogi par immunity bharke nahi”, and

“Jiska har bowl hai bhara iron aur ghane poshan se”, were inadequately substantiated. The

claims are misleading by ambiguity and implication and are likely to lead to grave or widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The disclaimers in the TVC were not in the same language as the audio of the TVC (Hindi).

The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code and Clause 4 (I) of ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers as well as Guidelines for advertising of Food and Beverage products.


COMPANY: Kamla Kant & Company LLP

PRODUCT: Rajshree Pan Masala

Complaint:

Rajshree Industries widely advertises to promote the consumption of pan masala via various

media. The commercial shows people dancing and making merry with drums being played and

holi, Diwali being celebrated, across different regions of India. Even cricket match audience are

shown promoting the consumption of the product. This commercial runs for approximately 45

seconds.

1. The font size of the health hazard warning is too small. When compared to the main

text on the packaged product, the difference in the font size is about 300%. Also, more

area of the product packaging should be covered in health warnings.

2. The background contrast of the warning is too dull rendering the warning unreadable

by a consumer with reasonably good eyesight.

3. The advertisement jingle doesn't mention the health warning which does no good to the

visually handicapped as all they hear is "achcha swaad, masti ka saath".

As written in out complaint, it is about:

1. What is being shown on web portals which is accessible to anyone, anytime.

2. What is being shown on TV.

As regarding the web portals, you may kindly access the following link.

Rajshree Pan Masala new TV Ad

Now, I could also access the video clipping of the same advertisement played before the

audience of Bhopal in Cinepolis Aashima Mall, during the interval break, which illustrates the

different objections I have posed in my complaint.





ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail, but replied requesting for an extension of one week

to submit their response. The advertiser was granted an extension of four days to the standard

lead time of seven days to submit their reply in response to their request for this extension. The

advertiser stated that they have followed standard guidelines for display of warning in the

advertisement. Advertiser provided a copy of CBFC certificate, and CBFC certified version of

the advertisement.

Upon carefully viewing the commercial provided by the advertiser, examining the complaint and

the response given by the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the hold duration of the disclaimer

on the screen was not for more than 4 seconds, and hence contravened Clause 4 (X) of ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers. The complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: Zydus Wellness Limited

PRODUCT: Nutralite

Claim:

“Nutralite is a Healthy Alternative to Butter”

Objection: “Nutralite advertises itself as a healthy alternative to butter. I bought this product

because I was convinced that Nutralite was a healthy substitute to butter. I did not realise that it

could be actually margarine. But on further research, I found that this might not be true and that

studies are not conclusive. This Harvard article for instance –

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-margarine.”





ASCI Secretariat which they did not avail. Further on the advertiser’s request, they were

provided with an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon.

Advertiser stated in their response that the website communication compares butter vs margarine.

As claim support data, the advertiser provided an article from Havard Health Publishing on Butter

Vs Margarine, Article reference on Monounsaturated and Polyunsaturated Fat, and total fat, Pack

image, Laboratory test reports for comparison of Nutralite with Butter, and Articles published by

USFDA giving more insights on the comparison. The advertiser asserted that Nutralite is

Cholesterol Free, contains Omega -3, has no trans fats and contains Vitamins A, D & E. The

CCC viewed the website advertisement and considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

observed that the advertiser did not submit any product specific details such as Composition and

Nutritional information / product sample / pack artwork, and FSSAI approval etc. The CCC

concluded that the claim, “Nutralite is a Healthy Alternative to Butter”, implying the advertised

product to be a better substitute for Butter was inadequately substantiated with comparative

technical data regarding the overall nutritional profile of the two compared products such as

saturated fats, transfats, total fats , calories etc. The claim is misleading by ambiguity and

exaggeration, and by omission of the basis of comparison. The claim is also likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The website advertisement


COMPANY: Hindustan Unilever Limited

PRODUCT: Pure Derm Shampoo

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Fast Track Complaint received against the TV Commercial, Print advertisement (in Dainik

Bhaskar), Facebook advertisement of “Hindustan Unilever Ltd – Pure Derm Shampoo”, from

Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Ltd.

Advertiser is making the following claims on print advertisements in their point of sale material:

On TV copies, Social Media (Facebook), and in other media touchpoints:

"100% tak Dandruff Aur Waapas Nahin Aayega"

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-margarine










Disclaimer: Purification from dirt, grease, and dandruff action at epidermal level. No visible

dandruff, with regular use. The impact of dandruff removal is dependent on the level of dandruff,

No visible dandruff with regular use of the product.

1. The alleged revised claim continues to contain the statement "wapas nahi aayega"

("never come back"), which was found misleading by ASCI in its earlier finding dated 28th

March, 2017, as the same connotes "dandruff elimination" and dandruff being a medical condition

cannot be eliminated by a cosmetic product. Further, ASCI had also found that the study provided

by advertiser did not substantiate the claim, as not all participants reached 'dandruff free' state.

Hence, advertiser has actually not addressed the issue of the claim implying "dandruff

elimination" as recommended by ASCI and continues to use an unsubstantiated misleading claim.

In this regard, we would like to submit that the Advertiser continues advertising its product as a

permanent remedy/ cure for dandruff by claiming that upon using 'never come back'. As accepted

by ASCI in its finding dated 28 March, 2018, that this is extremely misleading for a consumer of

average/ ordinary intelligence who is likely to mistake the product as a medical remedy for his

her dandruff problems.

2. The usage of modified "100% tak dandruff jayega" (Ùpto 100% dandruff will go') is a

clear plagiarism and imitation of our claim, "Upto 100% Dandruff Free”. P&G has been

historically using its claim "Upto 100% Dandruff free" since the year 2006 and all our H&S TV

copies (hindi) all carry voiceover "rahiye 100 % tak dandruff free humesha" "100% dandruff

hataye" "100% tak dandruff mitaaye" "100% tak dandruff free", the plan is to claim plagiarism

by advertiser. Further, all our H&S bottle packaging carries the claim "Upto 100% Dandruff

Free". Hence, over the years our brand has built its equity basis this claim and have our consumers

associate H&S with this claim.

Please find attached the storyboards of H&S TVC's running since the year 2012 and screenshots

of H&S bottle packaging for your reference. In the present case, the modified claim "100% tak

dandruff jayega" is not only virtually identical to our claim, but also it has been extensively used

by us in our advertising/promotional materials and on our packaging. Attached is the copy of the

ASCI decision dated October, 2014 for your reference.

3. It may be noted that, even if the entire claim, is read together i.e. "100% tak dandruff

jayega aur wapas aayega" is self-contradictory and self-negating, as it says two things that cannot

both be true. On one hand it says that dandruff will go upto 100% and on the other it suggests that

dandruff will never come back. If dandruff is removed only upto 100% then the assumption that

it will come back.

4. We would like to submit that advertiser's product is not a permanent solution (like a

vaccination) against dandruff and at best, assuming but not admitting, only mitigates the

occurrence of dandruff”

IRP RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

Heard the Learned Representatives of ‘Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Ltd.’

represented by Ms. Sangmitra Sawant, Legal Counsel (Complainant) and ‘Hindustan Unilever

Ltd’, represented by Mr. Prasad Neginhal, GM Legal and Mr. Himanshu Jain, Legal Manager

(Advertisers) who are the manufacturers of ‘Pure Derm Shampoo’ at length. Perused all relevant

reports for justifying the Claim. Visually saw the TV Commercial, YouTube advertisement.

In the above matter the FTCP after a detailed hearing of both the Representatives of the

Complainant and the Advertiser, after visually seeing the Advertisement, and after perusal of all

Reports, had upheld the Complaint that “100% Tak Dandruff Jayega Aur Waapas Nahin Aayega”

was misleading by omission and ambiguity, hence the Advertisement was found to be in

contravention of Chapter 1.4 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines on disclaimer in

advertising.

The Representatives of the Advertiser repeated the very same arguments advanced before the

FTCP. It was also contended that digital advertisements are for small screens, hence disclaimer

font cannot be compared with print or television commercials.

FTCP had rightly concluded that the disclaimer should indicate the duration of use (daily for four

weeks) required to achieve “Upto 100% Dandruff removal” state. Even the font size of Disclaimer

has to be big enough to read and there is no excuse contending that the Mobile Screens are small.

If that be so the very objective of Disclaimer is lost.

It is absolutely clear from the records, the above Advertisement, especially, “100% tak Dandruff

Jayega Aur Waapas Nahin Aayega” is misleading by ambiguity, all the more because not all the

volunteers reached the “Dandruff Free” state even after four weeks of daily use shampoo.

Therefore, the adjective “Upto (“Tak”) is a critical descriptor which needs equal emphasis as that

of the claim “100%”. Furthermore, the font size in the Disclaimer in Digital Advertisement is very

small rendering it to be illegible.

Hence the Order of FTCP in the above matter is upheld with respect to the ASCI Guidelines on

disclaimers.

The present IRP request is totally devoid of any merit, hence stands dismissed.

COMPANY: Godrej Consumer Products Ltd

PRODUCT: Good knight Fabric Roll-On

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Claims Objected to:

1. Kapdo pe ek do teen char no machhar biting ghar ke bahar

2. 100% natural

Complaint:

Objections:

1. Kindly substantiate claim 1 and 2 with claim support data from an independent agency.

2. Reference to claim 1, please substantiate with product efficacy data as to how application

of just four drops of the roll on the fabric can result in the claimed benefits.

3. Reference to claim 1, for what duration are the four drops of the roll on effective? Please

substantiate with claim support data.

4. Reference to claim 2, are there no added chemicals and stabilizers? If there are then it is

an omission and therefore misleading. According to us, the advertisement contravenes Chapter

1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI code. Action to be taken: We propose that the advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.”


Heard the Learned Representatives of ‘Godrej Consumer Products Ltd’ represented by Mr. Mandar

Chandrachud, AVP Corporate Legal; Ms. Reena, GM (R&D); Mr. Ankur Kumar, VP-Marketing

and Ms. Mita Tanna, Manager

Corporate Legal (Advertisers) who are the manufacturers of ‘Goodknight fabric roll on’ at length.

No one appeared on behalf of Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC). Visually saw

the TV Commercial of the Advertisement. Perused the full test Report of the Department Of

Zoology, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, State of Rajasthan.

The above Complaint was heard at length by CCC, wherein the CCC had upheld the Complaint

that the testing methodology does not substantiate the claim of “No Machar biting ghar ke bahar”

CCC also had upheld the Complaint that the Claim of “ingredients are 100% Natural”, holding that

two active ingredients form only 50% of the product, hence the said Claim was found to be

misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission of a mention that this claim is limited to only

the active ingredients.

After perusal of the Report, it is clear, that the test report is adequate to substantiate the claim in

part, namely if the subject is dressed with legs covered up to knees and arms covered upto elbow,

and four coin-sized dots are placed on the clothes on shoulders and legs areas of the clothes, there

is a significant reduction in landing and feeding of three types of mosquitoes. However, an

observation was also made regarding the control subject exposing more body surface area than the

test subject which could potentially provide better scores.

There is also no dispute that the Active Natural Ingredients constitutes only 50%. Hence the Claim

Of “100% Natural” is misleading by ambiguity, implication and omission therefore violates

Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI Code.

Accordingly, the Orders of the CCC are upheld.

In view of the above, the review application is dismissed with an observation that the advertiser

has already made amendment for the depiction of child with full sleeved shirt and full length pant

and the tag line “Macchar ki har ghar ke bahar”. The advertiser also offered to state “100% Natural

Actives / 100% Natural Active ingredients”

COMPANY: Wipro Enterprises P. Ltd.

PRODUCT: Chandrika Hair Oil

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

The ad shows woman weight lifting using their hair. The one not using the Chandrika hair oil fails

the other wins. The ad is completely misleading. No one can lift such weight using hair. The ad is

completely illogical and senseless. And totally misleading.


Heard the Learned Representatives of ‘Wipro Enterprises P. Ltd.’ represented by Ms. Rovena

David, Manager Legal and Mr. Venkateshwaran Suresh, Chief Marketing Officer (Advertisers)

who are the manufacturers of ‘Chandrika Ayurvedic Hair Oil’ at length. The Complainant chose

not to attend the hearing. Visually saw the TV Commercial.

The Advertisement claims that by using the Ayurvedic Hair Oil known as “Chandrika Ayurvedic

Hair Oil”, it arrests hair fall and makes the hair thicker and stronger. In the advertisement, the

competitor is shown lifting the dumbbells with her hair without any breakage of hair, whereas the

rival competitor loses lot of hair and the hair also breaks while lifting the dumbbells

The above complaint was heard by CCC, after seeing the Advertisement, and after hearing the

Advertiser at length, the CCC found that the Advertiser could not substantiate the claim by any

data that by using the said Ayurvedic Hair Oil, the hair fall was arrested, the hair became thicker

and stronger. Hence the advertisement was found to be misleading by implication and

exaggeration, hence contravened Chapter 1.1and 1.4 of ASCI Code.

Even in IRP proceedings, the Advertiser could not produce any scientific data to substantiate the

claim that use of Chandrika Ayurvedic Hair Oil, would arrest hair fall, and it will make the hair

thicker. The study produced in these proceedings, indicates that the hair becomes stronger against

breakage. There is no scientific data produced to justify the claim of arrest of hair fall or even make

the hair thicker. In any event, despite the disclaimer stating “Visual representation is illustrative

only and may not be an exact representation” the Advertisement is clearly misleading and even

dangerous, if someone were to attempt lifting such heavy dumbbells, the person will suffer severe

spinal injuries.

Under these circumstances, the Order of the CCC is upheld for the claim “arrests hair fall”.

In view of the above, the review application is dismissed with an observation that the advertiser

offered to make necessary amendments with respect to the benefit being due to reduction of hair

breakage.

COMPANY: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD

PRODUCT: Indulekha Bringha Oil

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Fast Track Complaint received against the TV Commercial and YouTube advertisement of

“Hindustan Unilever Ltd – Indulekha Bringha Oil”, from Marico Limited.

The advertiser is projecting their product as an effective medicine for hereditary hair fall.

Advertisement also claims

“growth of new hair” due to Product application.

The advertisement starts by showing a young man referring to his father & grandfather and saying

that along with the family business, they have passed down upon him the problem of hereditary

hair fall. This clearly refers to the Male Pattern Baldness (MPB). The father shown to be at an

advanced stage of MPB says that he too suffered from hair fall since a young age. The

advertisement further claims that application of Indulekha oil leads to new hair growth, implying

that MPB will be reversed. It ends by the father saying that wish he had indulekha when he was

young, again implying that he would not be in the advanced stage of MPB with the application of

Indulekha oil.

Advertisement clearly misleads consumer to believe that Indulekha is a medicine which will

reverse hereditary hair fall. HUL, having proved twice before ASCI expert panel that their product

is only an adjuvant therapy, should withdraw all such advertisements which claims new growth

due to Indulekha Hair Oil. The present advertisement being so misleading that it even claims

treatment of hereditary hair fall problem.

Advertiser is making false claim of hereditary hair fall cure, we request ASCI expert panel to

examine veracity of this claim.

It is submitted that hereditary hair fall problem, (false) product benefit & wish by father had been

cleverly portrayed to give an overall impression that Indulekha is the medicine which is effective

for new hair growth and reversal of baldness. This clever portrayal is based on falsehood and half-

truth it will certainly misled consumer.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5isK4FwmgoM



FTCP RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The FTCP reviewed the TVC, and Digital advertisement (YouTube) and claims made therein and

noted the Advertiser’s written response.

The FTCP noted that the advertisement refers to hereditary male pattern baldness and indicates that

the product is effective in such cases. Advertisement also claims “grows new hair” due to Product

application in such scenario.

The advertiser submitted a clinical study report, affidavit by the actor as an individual testimonial

and reference to few in vitro / animal studies regarding efficacy of the active ingredient. However,

the FTCP noted that while the story in the TVC focuses on hereditary male pattern hairloss being

reversed, the clinical study inclusion criteria did not include such study subjects. Moreover, the

study results indicated that the non-treatment group and control group (coconut oil only) also

showed a significant improvement over time in terms of hair density. Therefore, this study was not

considered acceptable in the context of the current TVC. In the absence of robust clinical data in

statistically significant representative sample size to prove efficacy of the product in reversing male

pattern baldness, the individual testimonial was not considered to be acceptable. The advertiser did

not submit any references from classical Ayurvedic literature to support that the active ingredient/s

help in hair regrowth in case of male pattern baldness.

In view of the above, the FTCP concluded that in the context of the TVC positioned on solution

for male pattern baldness, the claim “grows new hair” was not substantiated. The advertisement is

misleading by ambiguity and implication. The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 and I.4 of

the ASCI code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: KRAFT HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PRODUCT: Complan

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Fast Track Complaint received against the Print advertisement of “Kraft Heinz India Private Limited

- Complan” which appeared in The Telegraph, Kolkata dated 15th July 2018, from GlaxoSmithKline

Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

The print Advertisement of the Advertiser makes a claim of "Best ever Complan has Protein

equivalent to 1 full egg". The visuals show a yellow cup with Complan written on it on the top of

the podium with a full egg in front. There is a claim "1st class Protein" written below it. There is a

blue cup much smaller in size than the Complan cup at a lower height on the podium with half an

egg in front.

The Advertiser uses the following disclaimer for its claims:

"One recommended serve of Complan has highest Protein compared to the Protein content in one

recommended serve of other health drinks price below Rs. 600 rupees per kg for children between

6-15 years of age (data as of 52 weeks prior to May 2018)"

"Protein that contains all essential amino acids are known as 1st class Protein (Biology: A functional

approach pg.75)"

Complaint I - The Blue cup shown in the Print Advertisement denotes Horlicks It is submitted that

the blue cup is popularly associated with Horlicks.

a) Horlicks uses a blue cup in all its advertisements and promotional materials where it promotes

hot consumption of the product i.e. in the East and South markets which are also its biggest markets.

The Advertisements under complaint being in Bengali language are also directed at the East market.

The consistent use of this visual over many years in conjunction with the brand has made the

blue cup identifiable with Horlicks (amongst health food drinks) in the minds of the consumer.

Attached as Annexure 2 are snapshots of advertisements of Horlicks showing the use of the blue

cup in TVCs and print advertisements over a period of many years, snapshot of the website and the

product pack.

The Advertiser makes the following disclaimer: "One recommended serve of Complan has highest

Protein compared to the Protein content in one recommended serve of other health drinks price

below Rs. 600 rupees per kg for children between 6-15 years of age (data as of 52 weeks prior to

May 2018)"

Without prejudice to the fact that the disclaimer is entirely misleading by ambiguity, it makes the

Advertiser's intent abundantly clear that the product being compared is Horlicks.

Attached as Annexure 4 are snap shots of previous advertisements of the Advertiser where they

have used the blue cup to denote Horlicks.

Even otherwise, the intention to target Horlicks is clear as it is the market leader in the category and

out of the two other leading brands Bournvita uses an orange cup and Boost uses a red cup.

Complaint II - The Advertisement unfairly and maliciously denigrates Horlicks

The entire visual gives to the viewers an impression that Horlicks is lesser than or inferior to

Complan in all respects whereas what is being compared is only the protein content. It gives to

the Consumers an impression that only Complan contains 1st Class Protein whereas even

Horlicks delivers all essential amino acids and on that basis also contains 1st class Protein.

Attached herewith as Annexure 6 are lab analysis reports showing the presence of all essential

amino acids in Horlicks. However, the Advertiser's claim of 1st class Protein in conjunction with

a comparative claim on Protein content leads the consumer into believing that only Complan has

1st class Protein and is thus a superior product.

The overall effect of the advertisement as seen through the entire visual is thus to disparage or

denigrate the Complainant's product through a misleading claim.

By just highlighting the protein content in comparison with and denigration of Horlicks or

even other health drinks, the Advertiser has sought to confer an artificial advantage upon its

product. For a clearer understanding a comparison was done on the nutrient delivery of Horlicks

and Complan attached as Annexure 7. The comparison makes it evident that Horlicks weighs

higher on parameters such as vitamins and minerals delivery. Majority of micronutrients are

higher in Horlicks whereas Complan is higher on "negative ingredients" like sugar and fat.

Micronutrient deficiencies are highly rampant in India. Latest NFHS IV data reports a high

percentage of anemic children in India (>50%)i. Deficiencies of other micronutrients like some

B-complex vitamins particularly riboflavin, folic acid and perhaps vitamin B12 are also

commonii. In wake of new data supported by NFHS IV, it is very clear that equal focus should

be laid on the supplementation of micronutrients. Coming to the critical role of micronutrients

in growth and development, European Food Safety Association (EFSA) recognizes the role of

almost all micronutrients in growthiii. And as shown in Annexure 7, Horlicks delivers better on

the micronutrient profile.

Complaint III -The Advertisements is misleading

The disclaimer of 'other health drinks priced below 600 rupees/kg' is an artificial and specious

distinction incorporated by the advertiser to technically comply with the ASCI Guidelines in this

regard while actually being in flagrant violation of the principles on which it is based. Basing a

claim of superiority in health drinks, the category which the advertiser admittedly belongs to,

while at the same time, excluding all products priced higher than itself exploits consumers lack

of awareness of the various options available in the market. Seeking refuge under a selective

disclaimer abuses the trust of consumers who would be misled into believing that all other health

drinks have merely half the protein compared to Complan.”

FTCP RECOMMENDATION: UPHELD

The Complainant as well as the Advertiser representatives were given the opportunity for

personal hearing with the Technical expert and the ASCI Secretary General. Data submitted by

the complainant and the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert.

The FTCP reviewed the print advertisement and noted the Advertiser’s written response. The

details of the complaint and the rationale for claim support was taken into consideration.

The FTCP concluded as follows –

Complaint I - The Blue cup shown in the Print Advertisement denotes Horlicks

Complaint II - The Advertisement unfairly and maliciously denigrates Horlicks

The FTCP referred to a complaint taken up earlier (Ref. FTCC 1806-FTCC.7) wherein complaint

of similar nature was not upheld as the FTCP noted that the blue cup shown in the TVC is not

uniquely identifiable with Horlicks as neither is it the “product” nor is it branded. Moreover, the

advertiser submitted evidence wherein cups, glasses, sippers etc in different colours have been

used in the past Horlicks communications. The FTCP did not consider this depiction incorrect

or objectionable.

The FTCP also noted that the blue cup shown on product packaging (new element raised in the

current complaint) is also branded. As the depiction of the cup in the print advertisement is not

branded, the FTCP did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the blue cup shown in the

print advertisement denotes Horlicks.

The advertiser submitted evidence of one serve of their product containing protein equivalent of

average medium size egg. The FTCP also noted that the advertiser has qualified the claim by

way of a disclaimer -

"^ (in comparison) as per the recommended serve of products that are less than 600 rupees/kgs

(52 weeks till May 2018) and tested among 6-15-year-old children"

The claim not only covered top five players in the market but also more than 90% of the

volume share of the market (ACN retail panel data; Volume market share for 52wk period

ending June 2018). The FTCP did not consider taking protein content as the basis of

comparison and qualifying the claim appropriately to be objectionable.

The advertisement was not considered to be denigrating Horlicks.

In view of the above, the above referred complaints were NOT UPHELD.

However, the FTCP observed that the advertiser indicates that their product has 1st Class protein.

But the depiction in the print advertisement of placement of the text below yellow cup only

creates an impression that other product being compared against does not have any 1st Class

protein. This aspect (absence of 1st class protein in other products) was substantiated whereas

the complainant submitted data showing presence of all essential amino acids in Horlicks. The

FTCP considered this to be misleading by omission and implication. The advertisement unfairly

denigrates other health drinks. The print advertisement was in contravention of Chapters 1.1, I.4

and IV.1 c,d,e of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

COMPANY: KRAFT HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PRODUCT: Complan

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Fast Track Complaint received against the TV Commercials which appeared on Zee Bangla and Zee

24 Ghante dated

13th July 2018 of “Kraft Heinz India Private Limited - Complan”, from GlaxoSmithKline Consumer

Healthcare Ltd. The TVC attached as Annexure 1 is in Bengali language and has Mr. Saurav

Ganguly (Dada) visiting a household with a young child who is eager to get his autograph on his

cricket bat but is not able to pull out the bat from the height at which it has been hung on the wall.

The health drink being referred to is shown in a blue cup on the table to which Mr. Ganguly points

a finger and says in a sneering tone "This? This will only make half-dada". The celebrity goes on to

say, "You must be thinking that you are giving protein equal to one whole egg, but, actually, you

are giving only this much.

The TVC further makes the claim that "A cup of Complan provides protein equivalent to 1 whole

egg. Which means Complete/ Full Dada".

The TVC attached as Annexure 2 is also in Bengali language and shows a child character playing

cricket who fails to take a catch. The character looks disappointed on the "failure". The mother reacts

to the dismay of the kid and is seen handing her a blue cup suggesting that with consumption of a

health drink she'll also be able to take catches like the legendary cricketer Saurav Ganguly (called

Dada in the TVC). Further it is seen that the celebrity endorser Mr. Saurav Ganguly enters the shot,

takes the blue cup from the hands of the child and says, "This? This will only make halfdada".

The TVC further makes the claim that "A cup of Complan provides protein equivalent to 1 whole

egg. Which means Complete/ Full Dada".

Complaint I - The Blue cup shown in the TVCs denotes Horlicks It is submitted that the blue cup is

popularly associated with Horlicks.

a) Horlicks uses a blue cup in all its advertisements and promotional materials where it promotes

hot consumption of the product i.e. in the East and South markets which are also its biggest markets.

The Advertisements under complaint being in Bengali language are also directed at the East market.

The consistent use of this visual over many years in conjunction with the brand in the said

markets has made the blue cup identifiable with Horlicks (amongst health food drinks) in the minds

of the consumer.

Attached as Annexure 3 are snapshots of advertisements of Horlicks showing the use of the blue

cup in TVCs and print advertisements over a period of many years, snapshot of the website and the

product pack.

The Advertiser uses the following disclaimer for the comparison:

"^ (in comparison) as per the recommended serve of products that are less than 600 rupees/kgs (52

weeks till May 2018) and tested among 6-15-year-old children"

Without prejudice to the fact that the disclaimer is entirely misleading by ambiguity, it makes the

Advertiser's intent abundantly clear that the product being compared is Horlicks.

Attached as Annexure 5 are snap shots of previous advertisements of the Advertiser where they have

used the blue cup to denote Horlicks.

Even otherwise, the intention to target Horlicks is clear as it is the market leader in the category and

out of the two other leading brands Bournvita uses an orange cup and Boost uses a red cup.

Complaint II - The TVCs are unfairly and maliciously denigrating Horlicks

The TVCs are highly denigrating to our product Horlicks through the storyline of the Advertisements

and the language and tonality.

The celebrity is shown taking away the blue cup from the child (Annexure 2) and pointing a finger

at the blue cup (Annexure 1) and stating in a sneering tone "This? This will only make half-dada"

We would like to submit that the TVCs are misleading by exaggeration and implication. "Aadha

dada" and "Puro Dada" in the context of the storyline is representative of one's potential. The TVCs

mislead the consumer into believing that the consumption of another health drink (read Horlicks)

would lead to achievement of only half potential but consumption of Complan will result in

achievement of one's full potential.

The storyline of the Advertisements give the impression that Horlicks is in some manner inferior to

Complan. The claim of the health drink in the blue cup making only "Aadha dada", the visual of the

egg being cut into half and the look of shock on the mother's face together gives the viewers an

impression that by consumption of Horlicks the child is only getting half of what he/she ought to be

getting for their growth and development and to enable them to realize their full potential.

Complaint III - The Advertisements are misleading: The advertiser misleads the consumer by stating

that:

a) One cup of Complan has protein equivalent to one egg

b) Other Health drinks provide protein equivalent to a half egg only

The Advertiser claims in the qualifiers:

• One Serving of Complan (33 gm) approx. 5.94 gms of protein^

• One average mid-sized+ egg (44 gm) approx. 5.84 gm protein*

^ (in comparison) as per the recommended serve of products that are less than 600 rupees/kgs (52

weeks till May 2018) and tested among 6-15 year old children

* Source for the calculation done on the amount of protein present in an average mid-sized egg -

Indian Food Composition Tables; NIN 2017

+ As per USDA average mid-sized egg

a) The disclaimer of 'less than 600 rupees/kg' is an artificial and specious distinction incorporated

by the advertiser to technically comply with the ASCI Guidelines in this regard while actually being

in flagrant violation of the principles on which it is based. The claim of 'Other Health drinks provide

protein equivalent to a half egg only' is clearly misleading as there are a number of other health

drinks that provide as much or greater protein delivery in a single serving. Basing a claim of

superiority in health drinks, the category which the advertiser admittedly belongs to, while at the

same time, excluding all products priced higher than itself exploits consumers lack of awareness of

the various options available in the market.

The Advertiser's claim "One cup of Complan gives protein equivalent to 1 whole egg ...which means

Puro Dada" is highly misleading by exaggeration and implication. There is no one way in which

any product or even a single nutrient can singly assure achievement of full potential much less by

consumption of Complan only because Complan provides protein equivalent to 1 whole egg.

By just highlighting the protein content in comparison with and denigration of Horlicks or even

other health drinks, the Advertiser has sought to confer an artificial advantage upon its product. For

a clearer understanding a comparison was done on the nutrient delivery of Horlicks and Complan

attached as Annexure 6. The comparison makes it evident that Horlicks weighs higher on parameters

such as vitamins and minerals delivery. Majority of micronutrients are higher in Horlicks whereas

Complan is higher on "negative ingredients" like sugar and fat.

Coming to the critical role of micronutrients in growth and development, European Food Safety

Association (EFSA) recognizes the role of almost all micronutrients in growthiv. And as shown in

Annexure 6, Horlicks delivers better on the micronutrient profile. However, the Advertisements

unfairly denigrate Horlicks just based on one parameter and deliberately ignoring other vital and

essential nutrients in products which play an equally important role in growth and development of

children.”

FTCP RECOMMENDATION: NOT UPHELD

The Complainant as well as the Advertiser representatives were given the opportunity for personal

hearing with the Technical expert and the ASCI Secretary General. Data submitted by the

complainant and the advertiser was reviewed by the technical expert.

The FTCP reviewed the TVC and noted the Advertiser’s written response. The details of the

complaint and the rationale for claim support was taken into consideration.

The FTCP concluded as follows –

Complaint I - The Blue cup shown in the TVCs denotes Horlicks

Complaint II - The TVCs are unfairly and maliciously denigrating Horlicks Complaint III - The

Advertisements are misleading

The FTCP referred to a complaint taken up earlier (Ref. FTCC 1806-FTCC.7) wherein complaint of

similar nature was not upheld as the FTCP noted that the blue cup shown in the TVC is not uniquely

identifiable with Horlicks as neither is it the “product” nor is it branded. Moreover, the advertiser

submitted evidence wherein cups, glasses, sippers etc in different colours have been used in the past

Horlicks communications. The FTCP did not consider this depiction incorrect or objectionable.

The FTCP also noted that the blue cup shown on product packaging (new element raised in the

current complaint) is also branded. As the depiction of the cup in the advertisement is not branded,

the FTCP did not agree with the advertiser’s contention that the blue cup shown in the TVCs denotes

Horlicks.

The advertiser submitted evidence of one serve of their product containing protein equivalent of

average medium size egg. The FTCP also noted that the advertiser has qualified the claim by way

of a disclaimer -

"^ (in comparison) as per the recommended serve of products that are less than 600 rupees/kgs (52

weeks till May 2018) and tested among 6-15-year-old children"

The claim not only covered top five players in the market but also more than 90% of the volume

share of the market (ACN retail panel data; Volume market share for 52wk period ending June

2018). The FTCP did not consider taking protein content as the basis of comparison and

qualifying the claim appropriately to be objectionable.

The FTCP observed that the TVC shows Sourav Ganguly (popularly known as “Dada”). The FTCP

considered the reference to Aadha dada and puro dada as creative licence. In view of the above,

these complaints were NOT UPHELD.

Documents

CCC Recommendations - August 2018 - ascionline.org recommendations - august 2018.pdfCCC Recommendations - August 2018 COMPANY: Nilaai Educational Trust Group of Institutes Complaint: