Recommendations – December 2020 - The Advertising ...

Recommendations – December 2020

Complaints deliberated in the month of December

2020

2012-CCC.22

Complaints received directly by ASCI on OCMS /

[email protected]

1. W 2010-C.1650 Clensta International Pvt

Ltd (Clensta Lotion)

MEDIUM: Product Packaging

Website Advertisement (https://clensta.com/shop-

clensta/)

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT:

Claims objected to:

1. World’s #1 COVID-19 PAP (prolonged Antiviral

Protection) Technology

2. 24-hour intensive protective care

3. Effective prevention against COVID-19

4. Kills 99.99% germs

Complaint:

“That it has come to our attention that a

Pharmaceutical Company by the name “Clensta” (

Hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) have

launched a “COVID Protection Lotion” ( Hereinafter

referred to as “the Product”) which claims to be an

advance bio-surfactant nanoparticle advancement in

the formulation to prevent COVID19 infection

without harming the environment and human health.

It is further claimed the product can be used over any

exposed part of the body including face and hands.

The application of the product keeps users safe from

viruses by disrupting it for almost 24 hours and

reduces the extended use of alcohol-based sanitizers

and washing hands multiple times a day and claims to

be in compliance with WHO, FDA & CDC.

That the above claim of providing “24- HOUR

PROTECTION AGAINST COCVID-19” by the

Company are completely “Unsubstantiated and

Careless”. That it is pertinent to mention here that no

clinically sufficient data specific to the above claims

is available making false claims without substantial

clinical evidence in media or otherwise is misleading

to patients and clinicians. That all such claims by

these pharma companies are nothing but mere

marketing gimmicks to promote themselves in the

market to sell their repurposed antiviral products to

the public and trying to gain big profits taking

advantage of the prevailing fear of spreading

coronavirus. That it is further stated that such claims

of discovering new medicines/products or inventing

new drugs/products by the company amounts to

misleading the public. Further, that the misleading

claims of the company are sending wrong signals

among the public, who are misled and may not take

preventive precautions to contain the spread of the

coronavirus. That the misleading statements by this

company of discovering new product for 24 HOUR

protection against COVID-19 will lead to further

spread of coronavirus as people may tend to move

freely without taking precautions in the hope that

they may get cured even if they are contracted with

the coronavirus. That it is also submitted that

Consumer trust in advertising relies in no small part

on the ability of the industry to effectively and

transparently police itself, This kind of situation is

very precarious for the society and would result in

complete mistrust among the customers. That it is

requested that an Inquiry be initiated against the

company to check the veracity of the claims so made

and the Company must be restrained from

advertising, selling and making any kind of public

statements on its claims of the product until and

unless an inquiry OR investigated be completed by

the Authorities.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION: The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its

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 to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of

the complaint and a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat

to seek further guidance, which they did not avail and

submitted their written response.

Advertiser submitted point-wise reply to the

objections raised in the complaint.

Claim – “World’s #1 COVID-19 PAP (prolonged

Antiviral Protection) Technology” – Advertiser stated

that “the “world’s #1” is used for the technology of

the product i.e. Prolonged Antiviral Protection (PAP)

technology where they have already applied for its

Trademark vide application No. “4660115” and

patent application No. “202011023511”. Since they

are the first company in the world to file a patent and

did not find anything in patent search hence they

used the word World’s #1 PAP Technology. The

product is based on first of its kind Prolonged

Antiviral Protection technology incorporated in the

Clensta Lotion that kills 99.9% of viruses that’s why

the term “world’s#1” is used.”

Claim – “24-hour intensive protective care”-

Advertiser stated that “As per the standards, an

impression “*” over “24 Hours” has been

marked which implies “the terms and conditions”.

mailto:[email protected]


Under the section “How to use the product” (given

on the label of the product) the term “Apply 15-20

minutes before exposure to the environment. Re-

apply 3 times in a day within the interval of 8

hours.” is intentionally mentioned in different font

and color on the label to bring to the knowledge of

the consumer. Hence, a message is conveyed that the

product protects from the pathogenic microorganism

for up to 24 hours when used following the

directions/instructions.”

Claim – “24-hour intensive protective care”-

Advertiser stated that “As per the standards, an

impression “*” over “24 Hours” has been

marked which implies “the terms and conditions”.

Under the section “How to use the product” (given

on the label of the product) the term “Apply 15-20

minutes before exposure to the environment. Re-

apply 3 times in a day within the interval of 8

hours.” is intentionally mentioned in different font

and color on the label to bring to the knowledge of

the consumer. Hence, a message is conveyed that the

product protects from the pathogenic microorganism

for up to 24 hours when used following the

directions/instructions.”

Claim – “Kills 99.99% germs” - Advertiser stated

that “Several antiviral and antimicrobial tests have

been conducted at the Government of India approved

a NABL accredited lab named “Arbro

Pharmaceuticals” which proves that the product kills

99.99% germs. A report in support of this statement

has been attached.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided – 1)

Video clip showing President of India talking about

the product, 2) Copy of the awards certificates,

photographs of the awards function, and media

coverage, 3) Print media coverage of their product,

4) Product Development Report, 5) Reports on

Clensta Covid-19 Protection Lotion, 6) Copy of

Website advertisement, 7) Front and back of Product

packaging, 8) Product Approval License.

The complaint and the advertiser’s response with the

claim support data was referred to the independent

technical expert of ASCI. The expert’s opinion was

shared with the advertiser for making any additional

submissions. The advertiser was also offered an

opportunity for IR at this stage based on the expert

opinion.

In response to the technical opinion, the advertiser

did not opt for an IR but sought for a meeting with

the technical expert, which was arranged by the ASCI

Secretariat through Zoom video conference.

Post meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the

technical expert, the advertiser replied requesting for

an extension of 7-8 working days to submit their

additional data in substantiation of the claims. The

deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints

Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the

immediate and widespread impact that

advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any

action which is needed to be taken with respect to the

same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this

purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for

advertisers/broadcasters etc. and the CCC itself

makes it a priority to deal with every complaint

before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a

special gesture, the advertiser was granted an

extension of additional three business days to

respond.

Advertiser subsequently responded and made the

following submissions – 1) Annexure-1 - Novelty

Patentability Assessment Report, 2) Annexure-2 -

Legal Opinion letter, 3) Annexure-3 - Antiviral

Report, 4) Annexure-4 - Antimicrobial Report, 5)

Annexure-5 - References for ingredients, 6)

Annexure-6 - Cell Cytotoxicity Report, 7) Annexure-

7 - FDA Certificate, 8) Product Development Report.

Based on the advertiser’s additional response, the

technical expert submitted his final opinion for the

CCC to consider. The CCC viewed the Website

advertisement (https://clensta.com/shop-clensta/) and

the Product Packaging and considered the

advertiser’s response as well as the opinion of the

Technical expert presented at the meeting.

The CCC observed that the application of PAP

Technology is pending under patent process. Several

breakthough observations about Nano technology /

Nano-biotechnology are under development.

Therefore it is yet to be finally decided and accepted

as it is under evaluation process. Therefore the whole

process needs to be assessed for efficacy and

efficiency of the stated effects. The new technology

product must be proved to be nontoxic by animal

studies for acute toxicity /subacute toxicity / chronic

toxicity and teratogenicity as the application on skin /

face may result in absorption through skin/mucous

membranes. Therefore the appropriate claim support

data is necessary.

As the claim of 24 hour intensive protection care is

made with three (3) times application 8 hourly

interval. It mathematically means only 8 hours

protection per application. Appropriate protection

time study was not submitted to substantiate the

claim. The adequate prevention studies claim support

data was also not submitted.

NABL accreditation is accepted in many countries

through MRA as it is based on international standards

for testing and calibration laboratories such as ISO

17025 or ISO 15189 according to the scope of testing

by the laboratory. The test reports submitted from

ARBRO lab is not on appropriate stationary of

https://clensta.com/shop-clensta/


NABL accredited lab indicating that the particular

tests may not be within the scope of the NABL

accreditation of the laboratory.

The antimicrobial activity of Silver Nanoparticles on

surfaces is subject to many variables. It therefore

cannot be accepted without setting the scope and time

lines for antiviral / antibacterial activity without

appropriate claim support data for a specific product,

from an accredited testing laboratory.

The study for the product was done for anti-bacterial

and Antiviral activity with MS 2 phages which are

viruses of bacteria and not against animal /human

viruses including the currently circulating SARS-

CoV-2 virus. Testing using MS 2 phages is useful

only for preliminary screening of antiviral activity.

One needs to test against appropriate viruses if

required as claim support data.

The CCC noted that the advertiser has submitted in-

vitro study. However there was no in-vivo study

provided to prove the product efficacy in animals and

in humans, as efficacy on a normal skin and efficacy

in a test tube can be completely different. The data

was considered inadequate in the absence of clinical

trials done on humans.

Due to high risk / hazard of handling of SARS-CoV-

2 virus in laboratory, it has been necessary to develop

appropriate methods of testing. The use of less risky

surrogate virus, instead of highly pathogenic and

hazardous SARS-CoV-2 virus, is one such step

accepted by ASTM till actual standards are

developed and made available. This has helped in

developing testing methods without compromising on

the accuracy of the testing for SARS- CoV-2 virus, as

very closely related surrogate viruses belonging to

the same family ‘coronaviridae’ and same genus

‘Beta coronaviruses’ as that of SARS CoV 2 virus,

are used. Hence, it is justified to use a surrogate virus

for testing.

Further, the Australian Government’s Department of

Health, Therapeutics Goods Administration

published the “TGA Instructions for disinfectant

testing” in March 2020 which clearly state that

murine hepatitis virus (also known as murine

coronavirus) can be used as a surrogate if SARS virus

or COVID-19 virus cannot be used.

The CCC acknowledged the effort and dedication

behind the creation of this product and noted its

possibility of being effective if put to test. However,

in the absence of appropriate test reports the claims

remain unsubstantiated.

Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that

the claims, “World’s #1 COVID-19 PAP (prolonged

Antiviral Protection) Technology”, “24-hour

intensive protective care”, “Effective prevention

against COVID-19”, and “Kills 99.99% germs”,

were inadequately substantiated. The claims are

misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to

widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The Website advertisement and the

Product Packaging contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

NAMS Complaints:

2. @ 2011-C.1583 Sri SatyaSai University of

Technology and Medical Sciences (SSSUTMS)

MEDIUM: DainikBhaskar(*), Bhopal Edition, Main

Isuse (English) (14.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Job Guarantee with the Assistance of Logistics Skill

Council of India”

CCC RECOMMENDATION: Exparte

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its

response in addressing the objection raised in the

complaint. The advertiser was offered an option to

seek Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by

modifying or withdrawing the claim objected to in

the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the

claim with the required supporting data. The

advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a

telecon with the ASCI Secretariat. The Consumer

Complaints Council (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 the advertiser is providing coaching for

Degree in Hospitality Management. Upon careful

consideration of the complaint and in the absence of

any response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded

that the claim, “Job Guarantee with the Assistance of

Logistics Skill Council of India” was not

substantiated with authentic supporting data such as

batch size of students per year, detailed list of

students and evidence to support their enrolment,

contact details of students for verification, List of

students who were placed through their institute with

the assistance of Logistics Skill Council of India on

course completion, their appointment letters, list of

students who were not placed and the reason for their

non-placement, nor any independent audit or

verification certificate. Furthermore, the

advertisement did not have any disclaimers to

indicate “Past record is no guarantee of future job


prospects” nor did it have a declaration of the total

number of students passing out from the placed class.

The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely

to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of

students. The print advertisement contravened ASCI

Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions

and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of

the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers

made in supporting, limiting or explaining claims

made in advertisements. This complaint was

UPHELD.

3. @ 2011-C.1645 ICA Edu Skills

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://studyrankers.com)

(English) (0208.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% placements”














The CCC viewed the digital display advertisement

and observed that the advertiser is providing

coaching for B.Com course. Upon careful



that the claim, “100% placements”, was not




contact details of students for verification, list of

students who were placed through their Institute in

relevant industries on completion of their courses,

their appointment letters, list of students who were

not placed and the reason for their non-placement,

nor any independent audit or verification certificate.

Furthermore, the advertisement did not have any

disclaimers to indicate “Past record is no guarantee of

future job prospects” nor did it have a declaration of

the total number of students passing out from the

placed class.



students. The digital display advertisement

contravened ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs as well as

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI

Guidelines for Disclaimers made in supporting,

limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements.

This complaint was UPHELD.

4. @ 2011-C.1717 Pristine InfoSolutions Pvt.

Ltd.

MEDIUM: DivyaBhaskar(*)Vadodara Edition, Main

Issue (English) (22.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. India’s Best now in Vadodara

2. The most demanded certifications by corporates

worldwide



response in addressing the objections raised in the



modifying or withdrawing the claims objected to in


claims with the required supporting data. The






The CCC viewed the the print advertisement and

observed that the advertiser is providing training for

ethical hacking training course. Upon careful

consideration of the complaint, and in the absence of


that the claim, “India’s Best now in Vadodara” was

not substantiated with any market survey data or with

verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s company

versus other similar IT services and Ethical Hacking

training companies in India, to prove that their

company is better than all the rest, nor the claim was

backed by a third party validation.

Claim, “The most demanded certifications by

corporates worldwide” was not substantiated with

any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of advertiser’s company versus

other similar IT services and Ethical Hacking training

companies in India, to prove that their company is

offering more demanded certifications courses by

corporates worldwide than all the rest, nor the claim

was backed by a third party validation.

http://studyrankers.com/


The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are

likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the

minds of students. The print advertisement


Educational Institutions and Programs, as well as

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This

complaint was UPHELD.

5. @ 2011-C.1719 Pandit Deendayal

Petroleum University-PDPU Innovation &

Incubation Centre (IIC)

MEDIUM: Ahmedabad Mirror(*), Ahmedabad

Edition, Main Issue (English) (23.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. PDPU was Awarded as the best performing SSIP

Grantee University in Private University Category

2. PDPU IIC was awarded as “Best Incubation Centre

for prominent IP culture” by IPPO for year 2017,

2018 & 2019















observed that the advertiser has made the claims on

the basis of the awards received by their University.

The CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide

copy of the awards certificate, reference of the

awards received such as the source, the basis of the

awards such as the details of the process as to how

the selection for the awards was done, details of the

criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology,

parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of

other similar Universities that were part of the

survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details of

the awarding bodies. Upon careful consideration of

the complaint, and in the absence of response from

the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“PDPU was Awarded as the best performing SSIP

Grantee University in Private University Category”

and “PDPU IIC was awarded as “Best Incubation

Centre for prominent IP culture” by IPPO for year

2017, 2018 & 2019” were not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The source for the claims

was not indicated in the advertisement.



minds of consumers, especially students. The print

advertisement contravened ASCI 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, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements. This complaint

was UPHELD.

6. @ 2011-C.1752 ITM Group of

Institutions-ITM Business School

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://marugujarat.in)

(English) (13.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“ITM B-School 100% Placement”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:



complaint. The advertiser was offered an

opportunity to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of


to seek further guidance, which they did not avail but

replied requesting for an extension of three days to

submit their detailed response. The deadlines

stipulated by Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

procedure exist keeping in mind the immediate and

widespread impact that advertisements have on the

public. Consequently, any action which is needed to

be taken with respect to the same is required to be

prompt and urgent. It is for this purpose that the

deadlines, as stipulated, are set for






respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “For the

claim they are having 100% placement and thus it

has been stated. They can’t share the student data as

per the institute policy. They agree that it should

have been stated that the last year 100% placement.

Under the above circumstances they can make

changes such as Last year 100% placement instead

of stating only 100% placement.”

As the advertiser agreed to modify the said claim,

ASCI Secretariat offered the advertiser an option of

http://marugujarat.in/


resolving the complaint under IR option, for which

they were asked to withdraw the said claim across all

media. The advertiser was also informed that the

proposed modification of the claim, `Last year 100%

placement’ would not be acceptable in the absence

of adequate claim support data.

As the advertiser did not opt for an IR nor did they

submit data in substantiation of the claim, within the

given timelines, the complaint was processed for

CCC deliberations.


(http://marugujarat.in) and considered the

advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for PGDM exams

and is claiming to provide 100% placements to their

students. In the absence of claim support data, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “ITM B-School

100% Placement”, was not substantiated with

authentic supporting data such as batch size of

students per year, detailed list of students and

evidence to support their enrolment, contact details of

students for verification, list of students who were

placed through their Institute in relevant industries on

completion of their courses, their appointment letters,

list of students who were not placed and the reason

for their non-placement, nor any independent audit or









contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs, ASCI


limiting or explaining claims made in advertisements,

as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.


7. @ 2011-C.1806 Ajeenkya DY Patil

University

MEDIUM: Times of India(*),Pune Edition, Main

Issue (English)(29.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Education Technology Innovation Award -

Competency Based Transcript System

2. Best Education Brand 2018-19 - Economic Times

3. Best Innovation in Education 2019 - Academic

Lions Award Management
















the basis of the awards received by Competency

Based Transcript System, Economic Times, and

Academic Lions Award Management. The CCC

observed that the advertiser did not provide copy of

the awards certificates, reference of the awards

received such as the source, the basis of the awards

such as the details of the process as to how the

selection for the awards was done, details of the



other similar universities that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey and the details of the

awarding bodies. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims,

“Education Technology Innovation Award -

Competency Based Transcript System”, “Best

Education Brand 2018-19 - Economic Times”, and

“Best Innovation in Education 2019 - Academic

Lions Award Management” were not substantiated

with supporting ranking data. The source for the

claims was not indicated in the advertisement.









was UPHELD.

8. @ 2011-C.1807 Apex Welcare Trust-Apex

Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Varanasi Edition,

Main Issue (Hindi)(23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:



"100% Job"
















BPT, DPT, Radiotherapy, Emergency& Trauma

Technician, Dialysis Cardiology, CT, MRI, OT,

ANM, GNM, B.Sc.(Nursing), Post Basic B.Sc.

(Nursing) , BAMS, B. Pharma, and D. Pharma

courses. Upon careful consideration of the complaint

and in the absence of any response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “100%

Job” was not substantiated with authentic supporting

data such as batch size of students per year, detailed

list of students and evidence to support their

enrolment, contact details of students for verification,

list of students who were placed through their

Institute/hospital in the Healthcare industry on














the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for

Disclaimers made in supporting, limiting or

explaining claims made in advertisements. This


9. @ 2011-C.1808 Sri Lakshmi Ammal

Educational Trust-Bharath Institute of

Science & Technology (BIST)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Coimbatore Edition,

Main Issue (English), (31.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"The Best Architecture School of the Year Award,

Higher Education Summit by Assocham & MHRD,

New Delhi"















observed that the advertiser has made the claim on

the basis of the award received from Assocham and

MHRD, New Delhi. However, the advertiser did not

provide a copy of the award certificate, reference of

the awards received such as the source, the basis of

the awards such as the details of the process as to

how the selection for the awards was done, details of

the criteria for granting the awards, survey

methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires

used, names of other similar institutes that were part

of the survey and the outcome of the survey. Upon

careful consideration of the complaint, and in the

absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claim, "The Best Architecture

School of the Year Award, Higher Education Summit

by Assocham & MHRD,

New Delhi" was not substantiated with supporting

ranking data. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement.

The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is






Code, Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in

Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

10. @ 2011-C.1809 Binayak Higher

Secondary School

MEDIUM: Sambad, Anugul Edition, Main Issue

(English)(18.08.2020)



Claims objected to:

1. Genuinely Best Science College of Angul District

2. Highest % Of 1st Division Passout Among All

Science Colleges of Angul District For 2018, 2019 &

2020”
















Science courses. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any response from

the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Genuinely Best Science College of Angul District”

was not substantiated with any market survey data or

with verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s

institute versus other similar institutes in Angul

District, to prove that their college is a better science

college than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by

a third party validation.

Claim, “Highest % Of 1st Division Passout Among

All Science Colleges of Angul District For 2018,

2019 & 2020” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative year for 2018, 2019, 2020, of the

advertiser’s college versus other colleges in Angul

District, to prove that they have higher % of 1st

division pass out than all the rest, nor the claim was









11. @ 2011-C.1810 Dwisha Consultants

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar(*), Ahmedabad Edition,

Main Issue (Gujarati), (15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

1. Guaranteed IELTS*

2. Guaranteed Student Visa (UK/Canada)*

3. Guaranteed Work Permit/P.R.*















observed that the advertiser is providing visa, work

permit to students for studying abroad – UK, Canada.

Upon careful consideration of the complaint, and in

the absence of any response from the advertiser, the

CCC concluded that the claims, “Guaranteed

IELTS*” , “Guaranteed Student Visa

(UK/Canada)*”, and “Guaranteed Work

Permit/P.R.*”, were not substantiated with detailed

list of students who have cleared their IELTS,

students who have received student Visa

(UK/Canada), and work permit/P.R through the

advertiser’s consultancy services, evidence to support

their enrolment including their contact details for

independent verification, and Certified copies of the

UK and Canada Visa, relevant documentation of the

work permit and P.R. The claims were also not









12. @ 2011-C.1811 Eagle Defence Academy

MEDIUM: EP Rajasthan Patrika(*), Jaipur Edition,

Main Issue (Hindi)(23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"Must Visit Once For Assured Success"

















Air forces, NDA, CDS, Army, Navy, and Delhi

Police course. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of any response from


“Must Visit Once For Assured Success” was not





students who were placed through their academy in

Defence sector on completion of their courses, their

appointment letters, list of students who were not

placed and the reason for their non-placement, nor

any independent audit or verification certificate.





placed class.









UPHELD.

13. @ 2011-C.1812 Engineers Point

MEDIUM: DainikBhaskar(*), AlwarEdition,

AlwarBhaskar (Hindi)(13.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1InAlwar District (Last 6 Year Result Above

90% In 12th Science, RBSE Result.)"
















IIT-JEE,NEET, AIIMS, CPT/CS, Foundation, NTSE

, and Olympiads course. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint and, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “No.1 in Alwar District (Last 6 Year Result

Above 90% In 12th Science, RBSE Result.)” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data of

advertiser’s institute versus other similar institutes in

Alwar District, to prove that they are in leadership

(No.1) position, or through an independent third party

validation. The source for the claim was not indicated

in the advertisement.





and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5

of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

14. @ 2011-C.1813 Extol College

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Bhopal Edition, Main

Issue (English), (13.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"Rated No.1 In Academics"
















career courses. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, "Rated


No.1 In Academics", was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s college

and other similar colleges, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1), or through an independent

third party validation. The source for the claim was

not indicated in the advertisement.





and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5


15. @ 2011-C.1816 Pearson India Education

Services Private Limited- Crossland Education &

Careers

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan Times(*), Chandigarh

Edition, Main Issue (English)(30.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. British Council IELTS *Awarded For Best Results

2. Best Coaching &Results














The CCC viewed the print advertisement. Upon

careful consideration of the complaint and in the


concluded that the claim, “British Council IELTS

*Awarded For Best Results”, with a copy of the

award certificate, reference of the award

received such as the year, source, the basis of the

award or the survey methodology followed to obtain

this information such as the details of the process as

to how the selection for the award was done, details

of the criteria for granting the award, parameters

considered, questionnaires used, names of other

institutes that were part of the survey, the outcome of

the survey, and the details about the awarding body.

The source for the claim was not indicated in the

advertisement.

Claim, “Best Coaching & Results”, was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s institute versus other similar institutes to

prove that they are better than all the rest in

providing coaching for the courses claimed, and their

results are also better than all the rest. The claim was

not backed by an independent third party validation.






Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code, and

ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in


16. @ 2011-C.1817 Folks India Institute of

Management and Hotel Management

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Agra Edition, My

City(Hindi)(29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"101% job guarantee"
















B.Sc., BBA, and MBA courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “101% job guarantee” was not















placed class.










17. @ 2011-C.1818 Dr. D.Y. Patil Unitech

Society's -Dr. D.Y. Patil Arts, Commerce &

Science College

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*),SolapurEdition, Main

Issue(English)(17.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement Assistance

2. Best College Award', SPPU















observed that the advertiser’s college/institute is

claiming that it provides placement assistance to their

students. Upon careful consideration of the complaint


advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the

advertiser may be providing placement assistance to

their students for getting jobs in relevant industries,

the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for

“100% Placement Assistance” claim. There cannot be

a percentage assigned to any assistance claim such as

40% or 80% assistance. The use of “100%” as a

descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

Claim, “Best College Award', SPPU”- the CCC

concluded that the claim, “Best College Award',

SPPU”, was not substantiated with a copy of the

award certificate, reference of the award received as

the source, the basis of the awards or the survey

methodology followed to obtain this information


selection for the award was done, details of the

criteria for granting the award, parameters


colleges/institutes that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and the details about the

awarding body. The source for the claim was not




minds of consumers including students. The print

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, ASCI


and Programs, . This complaint was UPHELD.

18. @ 2011-C.1819 Dr. D Y PatilVidyapeeth -

Global Business School & Research Centre

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Nagpur Edition, Spl

Oxford of The East Pune(English)(31.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"Best B-School of The Year 2020 Award in Asia

Education Summit & Awards, New Delhi"
















BBA, MBA and PHD, and has made the claim on the

basis of the award received by them. However, the

advertiser did not support this claim with a copy of

the award certificate, reference of the award

received as the source, the basis of the awards or the

survey methodology followed to obtain this

information such as the details of the process as to

how the selection for the award was done, details of

the criteria for granting the award, parameters






the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “Best B-School of The

Year 2020 Award in Asia Education Summit &

Awards, New Delhi”, was not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The source for the claim was




consumers including students. The print


Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs, Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI

Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of


was UPHELD.

19. @ 2011-C.1821 Ambiteous Commerce

Classes

MEDIUM: ABP Majha(*) (Marathi) (26.09.2020)

(20 Secs) (6:19:28)


Claim objected to:

“Maharashtra’s No. 1 Commerce Classes”














The CCC viewed the TVC and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Commerce, CA,

CS, and CMA courses. Upon careful consideration of

the complaint and in the absence of response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Maharashtra’s No. 1 Commerce Classes” was not


advertiser’s classes versus other similar classes in

Maharashtra, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1), or through an independent third party





students. The TVC contravened ASCI Guidelines for



Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

20. @ 2011-C.1823 Chennai’s Amirta

International Institute of Hotel Management

MEDIUM: Sun TV (Tamil) (19.09.2020) (50 Secs)

(10:51:59)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assurance in top star Hotels,

Ships, Resorts, Airlines in Abroad and in India”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:



complaint. The advertiser was offered an opportunity

to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint

and a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat to seek

further guidance, which they did not avail but

submitted their written response through their

Advocates.

Advocate on behalf of the advertiser stated that “the

said advertisement is only a communication to the

general public of options available to students and

parents for students to earn while their pursue

courses with their client. Details of their client’s

courses/programs are available at their website

https://chennaisamirta.com/ and their client’s

counsellors available at their client’s premises and

over phone would guide prospective students and

parents over the specifics of the course, including

such opportunities to earn while pursuing education

with their client.”

This response being inadequate, ASCI Secretariat

requested the advertiser to provide verifiable

evidence of students who were provided jobs, along

with their names and contact details for verification.

The advertiser was also offered an option of IR for

which they were asked to confirm withdrawal /

modification of the said claim across all media.

In response to ASCI’s query, the Advocate on behalf

of the advertiser responded that “their client has

created a record in the Job Fair of 2016 and 2017

conducted by them by placing 2286 students in 160

reputed hotels in Job Fair 2016 and 2587 students in

180 reputed hotels in Job Fair 2017. The particulars

of the same, including media coverage and articles

published in magazines and newspapers are

available at

https://chennaisamirta.com/placements/job-fair-

https://chennaisamirta.com/placements/job-fair-event/


event/. The list of Students placed each year by their

client between 2016-2019 is Annexed as Annexure A.

Due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, most of their

client’s employees are working remotely and hence

do not have access to all details/files. Their client is

therefore providing documents as ascertained and

available with them within the short period of time

available. Their client is not providing the contact

details of the students as they are bound by

confidentiality. However, the same can be verified

from the respective employers.”

As claim support data, the advocate provided list of

students placed each year by their client between

2016-2019.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed

the TVC (in Tamil) and considered the advocate’s

response and the supporting data submitted with their

response.

The CCC observed that the annexure A of the

advocate’s response was a tabular summary of their

Placement list of 2016 giving details of students

name, batch, branch, hotel name, and the job

department.

The CCC did not consider the above data as an

authentic and verifiable claim support document to

show the placements achieved by their students, as

this data was not validated by a third party

certification as acceptable. The CCC observed that

the advertiser did not provide authentic supporting





institute in top star Hotels, Ships, Resorts, Airlines

abroad and in India, on completion of their

courses, their appointment letters, list of students

who were not placed and the reason for their non-

placement, nor any independent audit or verification

certificate. Furthermore, the TVC did not have any




placed class.

Based on these observations, the CCC concluded the

claim, “100% Placement Assurance in top star

Hotels, Ships, Resorts, Airlines in Abroad and in

India”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is

misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of

students. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines for


Programs, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

21. @ 2011-C.1824 Schoolnet India Limited –

Geneoesekha

MEDIUM: ABP Ananda(*) (Bengali) (17.09.2020)

(10 Secs) (7:56:43)


Claim objected to:

“Bangla Language One and Only Online Platform”














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Bengali). Upon



concluded that the claim, “Bangla Language One and

Only Online Platform”, was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

coaching centre versus other similar coaching

centres, to prove that they are the only online

platform providing online coaching for Bangla

language. The claim was not backed by an

independent third party validation.





as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code.


22. @ 2011-C.1825 MIT Art Design and

Technology University (MIT ADT University)

MEDIUM: ABP Majha(*) (Marathi) (24.08.2020)

(30 Secs) (8:15:22)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Record for 35 Years @MIT

Group”


https://chennaisamirta.com/placements/job-fair-event/














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Marathi) and observed

that the advertiser is providing coaching for

Engineering, Maine Engineering, Bio- Engineering,

Food Technology, Management, Journalism, Fine-

Arts, Music, Design, Architecture, Vedic Science and

Film & Television courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “100% Placement Record for 35 Years

@MIT Group” was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data on year on year basis for 35 years as

claimed, such as batch size of students per year,

detailed list of students and evidence to support their



university in relevant industries on completion of

their courses, their appointment letters, list of



verification certificate. Furthermore, the TVC did

not have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is

no guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have

a declaration of the total number of students passing

out from the placed class.





as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code

and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in

supporting, limiting or explaining claims made in

advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

23. @ 2011-C.1826 Saraswat Pharmacy

College

MEDIUM: Prarthana(Oriya) (29.08.2020) (10 Secs)

(9:10:45)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement”















advertiser is providing coaching for D. Pharm.

course. Upon careful consideration of the complaint



Placement” was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data such as batch size of students per

year, detailed list of students and evidence to support

their enrolment, contact details of students for

verification, list of students who were placed through

their college in relevant industries on completion of




verification certificate. Furthermore, the TVC did

not have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is

no guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have

a declaration of the total number of students passing

out from the placed class. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of students. The TVC



Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI




24. @ 2011-C.1827 Seacom Group - Seacom

Engineering College

MEDIUM: News18 Bangla(*) (English)

(10.09.2020) (10 Secs) (8:22:39)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement

2. 100% Placement Assurance (Voice Over Claim)
















advertiser is providing coaching for B.Tech., BBA,

BCA, BBA Hospital Management, MBA and MCA

courses.

Upon careful consideration of the complaint and in


CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement”

and voice over claim, “100% Placement Assurance”

were not substantiated with authentic supporting data

such as batch size of students per year, detailed list of



students who were placed through their college in





Furthermore, the TVC did not have any disclaimers

to indicate “Past record is no guarantee of future job





minds of students. The TVC contravened ASCI







25. @ 2011-C.1828 Technique Polytechnic

Institute

MEDIUM: News18 Bangla(*) (Bengali)

(19.09.2020) (10 Secs) (7:14:30)


Claim objected to:

“West Bengal’s One and Only MBA Oriented

Polytechnic” (Voice Over Claim)














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Bengali) and observed

that the advertiser is offering coaching for courses in

various fields of engineering and technology. Upon



concluded that the voice over claim, “West Bengal’s

One and Only MBA Oriented Polytechnic”, was not



West Bengal, to prove that they are the one and only

MBA Oriented Polytechnic institute. The claim was

also not backed by an independent third party

validation. The claim is misleading by exaggeration

and is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in

the minds of students. The TVC contravened ASCI



the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

26. @ 2011-C.1833 Ultra Trust, Madurai-

Best Dental Science College

MEDIUM: Dinakaran, Madurai Edition Edition,

Main Issue, (English) (17.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Placement Assured”















observed that the advertiser is offering coaching for

diploma in dental hygienist and dental mechanic


courses, and is assuring placements to the students

on completion of these courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “Placement Assured” was not






Healthcare industry, their appointment letters, list of
















UPHELD.

27. @ 2011-C.1834 Swami Vivekanand

University

MEDIUM: EP NaiDunia(*),Gwalior Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi) (16.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Most Awarded University of MP”















observed that the advertiser’s is providing coaching

for various professional / career based courses, and

claims to have received the “The Most Awarded

University of MP”. However, the advertiser did not

support this claim with a copy of the award

certificate, reference of the award received as the

source, the basis of the awards or the survey






universities that were part of the survey, the outcome

of the survey, and the details about the awarding

body. Advertiser also did not provide verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s university versus

other similar Universities in Madhya Pradesh to

prove that they have received more awards than all

the rest, or through an independent third-party report.



concluded that the claim, “The Most Awarded

University of MP”, was not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers including



and Programs, Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

28. @ 2011-C.1837 Shri Shwetamber Jain

VidyalyaShikshaSamiti - S.J.College

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Jaipur Edition,

Main Issue, (Hindi),(17.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best College for Education”














The CCC viewed the print advertisement observed

that the advertiser’s is providing coaching for B.A,


B.Com and B.Sc. (Maths) courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “Best College for Education” was not

substantiated with any market survey data or with


versus other similar colleges, to prove that their

college is better for education than all the rest, nor the

claim was backed by a third party validation.







29. @ 2011-C.1838 Parmanand College of

Fire Engineering & Safety Management

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Aurangabad Edition, Main

Issue (Marathi) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Assistance (eligibility 10/12 degree)”




complaint. Given the nature of the claim, the

advertiser was offered an option to seek Informal

Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or

withdrawing the claim objected to in the

advertisement. The advertiser was also offered an

opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) noted that

no response was received from the advertiser prior to

the prescribed due date for this complaint.


observed that the advertiser’s college is claiming to

provide job assistance to their students. Upon careful



that while the advertiser may be providing job

assistance to their students for getting jobs in relevant

industries, the use of 100% numerical is not relevant

for “100% Job Assistance (eligibility 10/12 degree)”

claim. There cannot be a percentage assigned to any

assistance claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The

use of “100%” as a descriptor in the claim is

misleading by implication and is likely to lead to



advertisement contravened Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the

ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs. This


30. @ 2011-C.1840 Shri Siddhi Vinayak

Group of Institutions (SSVGI)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Bareilly Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assistance”














observed that the advertiser’s institute is claiming

that it provides placement assistance to their students.



CCC concluded that while the advertiser may be

providing placement assistance to their students for

getting jobs in relevant industries, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “100% Placement

Assistance” claim. There cannot be a percentage

assigned to any assistance claim such as 40% or 80%

assistance. The use of “100%” as a descriptor in the

claim is misleading by implication and is likely to

lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of






31. @ 2011-C.1841 Udupi Group of

Institutions, Manipal

MEDIUM: Vijay Karnataka(*), Mangalore Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Job Placement Assistance”
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is claiming to

provide job placement assistance to their students.




providing job placement assistance to their students

for getting jobs in relevant industries, the use of

100% numerical is not relevant for “100% Job

Placement Assistance” claim. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any assistance claim such as


descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication


the minds of consumers including students. The print





32. @ 2011-C.1846 Hind Water - Hind Water

Purifiers

MEDIUM: Calcutta News (Bengali) (05.09.2020)

(15 Secs) (8:17:37)


Claim objected to:

“Most Advanced Technology with 7 Stage

Purification”















that the advertiser is promoting their range of water

purifiers. However, the advertiser did not provide

copy of the brochure, user manual, and technical

specifications of the product. Also, there was no

technical data given for advanced technology of their

purifiers, and 7 stage water purification process of

their water purifiers.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Most Advanced

Technology with 7 Stage Purification” was not

substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. The

print advertisement contravened Chapters I.1 and I.4


33. @ 2011-C.1847 Anns International (Mr.

Cook) - Mr. Cook Home Appliances

MEDIUM: Mazhavil Manorama(*) (Malayalam)

(23.08.2020) (20 Secs) (13:24:55)


Claim objected to:

“India’s First Energy Saving Combo”














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Malayalam) and

observed that the advertiser is promoting their range

of cooking appliances. However, the advertiser did

not provide verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s product and other cooking appliance

brands, to prove that their energy saving combo being

promoted is the first in India than the others, nor the

claim was backed by an independent third party

validation.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s First Energy

Saving Combo” was not substantiated and is

misleading by exaggeration. The TVC contravened


Chapters I.1 and I.4 of the ASCI Code. This


34. @ 2011-C.1850 Wallmaax Paints Private

Limited – (Wallmaax Stainex)

MEDIUM: Twenty Four (Malayalam) (23.08.2020)

(10 Secs) (7:29:23)


Claims objected to:

1. India’s 1st Sanitized 99.9 % Anti Germ Certified

Paint

2. India’s First Sanitized Paint (Voice over claim)

3. Protect Walls from Bacteria and Virus for Two

Years (Voice over claim)

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “The name of the product

range per say is only Stainex that was launched in

2016 by them as an Interior emulsion Paint that can

be cleaned/washed easily. Now they have

incorporated an additive based on Nano Silver Ion

(Silver Nitrate) to add the properties of Anti-

Microbial to their existing range of Stainex from the

supplier Sanitized AG of Switzerland. Hence the

definition as Stainex Sanitized. This product was

tested Vs Japanese Specification JIS Z 2801 for anti-

bacterial properties through M/s Sanitized Ag of

Switzerland, done at BTS lab in Mumbai. Recently

SriRam Labs in India have initiated this test.

However, based on the details provided by their

Supplier wherein they had claimed that the product

that they are using in their Paint had been tested for

anti viral properties, the fact that they did not have

in-house facility or Indian lab for conducting the test

and understanding the need of the hour for such a

performing paint, they increased the dosage in the

paint for better performance and to be sure of anti-

viral performance as well. The certificate from BTS

lab through M/s Sanitized is for 99.9%+ killing of

microbes. Hence they had used 99.9% germs killed

for easy understanding of customers.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a copy

of the Antimicrobial Certificate from Santized

Preservation India Pvt. Ltd, and Technical

information document from Sanitized AG of

Switzerland on ‘Antimicrobial additive for water-

borne coatings to prevent microbial attack in the

solid-state’.

As this response was not exhaustive and inadequate

as claim support data, ASCI Secretariat further

requested the advertiser to submit relevant product

efficacy data specific for each of the claims made.

The advertiser was also offered an option of

resolving the complaint under IR, for which they

were asked to withdraw the said claims across all

media.

As the advertiser did not opt for an IR nor did they

submit data in substantiation of the claims, within the

given timelines, the complaint was processed for

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) deliberations.

The CCC viewed the TVC (in Malayalam) and

considered the advertiser’s response and the data

provided in support of their response. The CCC

considered this claim support data to be inadequate.


product specific details such as copy of product

approval license, product label, and product

composition details.

Advertiser also did not provide any support data or

evidence of comparison with other leading Paint

brands in India, to prove that the advertiser’s product

is ‘India’s 1st Sanitized Paint’ and ‘Sanitized 99.9%

Anti Germ Certified Paint’ as claimed.

In the absence of claim support data, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “India’s 1st Sanitized 99.9

% Anti Germ Certified Paint”, and Voice over claim

“India’s First Sanitized Paint”, were not substantiated

with verifiable comparative data, or through an

independent third-party validation. – should this be

added ? THIS CAN STAY.

ANY CERTIFIED PRODUCT APPROVING BODY

COULD ALSO VALIDATE THEM TO BE

INDIA’S 1ST

The CCC also noted that there were no test reports

submitted to establish the product’s efficacy in

protecting the walls from Bacteria and Virus for two

years. The CCC was of the view that the product

performance claim made would require substantiation

by appropriate time-kill assay reports.

Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that

the voice over claim, “Protect Walls from Bacteria

and Virus for Two Years”, was not substantiated.



minds of consumers. The TVC contravened



35. @ 2011-C.1853 Chandra Brothers Medi

Med Pvt. Ltd (Chandra’s Chandraboti After 40

Anti Aging Capsule)


MEDIUM: News18 Bangla(*) (Bengali)

(02.10.2020) (10 Secs) (6:44:39)


Claim objected to:

“Increase Immunity Power and Disease Prevention

Capacity”















advertiser is promoting an `40 Anti Aging Capsule’

claiming that it has medicinal properties to increase

immunity power and disease prevention capacity.

However, the advertiser did not submit any product

specific details such as composition / licence / pack

artwork or samples. They also did not provide any

scientific rationale or clinical evidence of product

efficacy to prove the product’s ability in increasing

immunity power to fight against diseases.


the absence of comments from the advertiser, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “Increase Immunity

Power and Disease Prevention Capacity”, was not

substantiated. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave and


consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4

and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

36. @ 2011-C.1855 Dr. Virendra Swarup

Institute of Computer Studies

MEDIUM: Amar Ujala(*), Kanpur Edition, My

City(English)(23.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Top Placements

2. To be the best, Choose the Best

3. Biggest Educational Group of Northern India















that the advertiser is providing coaching for

Undergraduate, post graduate, professional degree

courses, BCA, BBA, MBA and MCA. Upon careful



that the claim, “Top Placements” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data of

advertiser’s institute versus other similar institutes, to

prove that their institute is always in the leadership

position for providing top placements.

Claim, “ To be the best, Choose the Best” was not


verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s institute

versus other similar institutes, to prove that they are

better than all the rest in providing coaching for the

courses claimed.

Claim “Biggest Educational Group of Northern

India” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of advertiser’s group of institutes

versus other similar groups of institutes in Northern

India, to prove that their group is bigger than all the

rest.

The advertiser failed to establish these claims through

an independent third party validation. The claims are


widespread disappointment in the minds of students.

The print advertisement contravened ASCI




37. @ 2011-C.1857 Gandhi Institute of

Management and Technology

MEDIUM: Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata Edition,

Main Issue(English)(18.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Written Job Bond

2. CSR Award
















that the advertiser is providing coaching for BBA,

MBA Hospital Management, Hotel Management,

Cruise line Management, International Hotel and

Tourism Administration, and Nursing courses. Upon


absence of any response from the advertiser, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “Written Job Bond” was

not substantiated with detailed list of students who

had received written job bond through their institute,

copy of their offer letters, and their contact details for

independent verification by ASCI. The advertiser

failed to establish the same through an independent

third party validation.

Claim, “CSR Award”, was not substantiated with a

copy of the award certificate, reference of the award

received as the source, the basis of the award, or the









advertisement.





I.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for

Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, and

ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Programs. This complaint was

UPHELD.

38. @ 2011-C.1859 Vidya Bharati

Educational Trust-GIET University

MEDIUM: Sambad, Bhubaneshwar Edition, Main

Issue(English)(13.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Awarded Best University for Campus Placement in

Eastern India on 27th February 2020 At Vigyan

Bhawan, New Delhi From Shri Pratap Chandra

Sarangi Hon'ble Union Minister, MSME, Govt. of

India(Organized By Asia Education Summit 2020

2. If you are looking for a University which gives

Guarantee of Campus Placement to all, your search

ends here
















B.Tech, B.Sc, M.Tech , MBA, MCA, BBA, BCA,

MA and Ph.D courses, and is guaranteeing to provide

campus placements. They have also made the claim

on the basis of the award received at Asia Education

Summit 2020. However, the advertiser did not

provide a copy of the award certificate, reference of

the award received such as the source, the basis of the

award such as the details of the process as to how the


criteria for granting the award, survey methodology,


other universities that were part of the survey and the

outcome of the survey. Upon careful consideration of



“Awarded Best University for Campus Placement in

Eastern India on 27th February 2020 At Vigyan

Bhawan, New Delhi From Shri Pratap Chandra

Sarangi Hon'ble Union Minister, MSME, Govt. of

India (Organized By Asia Education Summit 2020”,

was not substantiated with supporting ranking data.

Claim, “If you are looking for a University which

gives Guarantee of Campus Placement to all, your

search ends here” was not substantiated with






placed through their university in relevant industries

on completion of their courses, their appointment

letters, list of students who were not placed and the

reason for their non-placement, nor any independent

audit or verification certificate. Furthermore, the










Programs, Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings

in Advertisements, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers


made in advertisements, as well as Chapters I.1, I.4


UPHELD.

39. @ 2011-C.1863 Buy Happy Marketing

LLP – Vcare Herbal Hair Oil

MEDIUM: Thanthi TV (Tamil) (26.09.2020) (30

Secs) (19:14:51)


Claim objected to:

“Stop Hair Fall within 1 Month of Usage”














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Tamil) and observed

that the advertiser is promoting their herbal hair oil

claiming that it stops hair fall within one month of

usage. However, the advertiser did not provide

product specific information such as copy of product

approval license, product label, product composition

details, and evidence of ingredients present in the

product. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any comments or

response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “Stop Hair Fall within 1 Month of Usage”,

was not substantiated with product efficacy data. The

claim is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to

lead to grave disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4,


UPHELD.

40. @ 2011-C.1879 The ICFAI University,

Dehradun

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Lucknow Edition,

Main Issue (English) (23.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. ICFAI Business School-Ranked Best Business

School in Uttarakhand by Uttarakhand Educator

Summit, 2019

2. ICFAI Law School- 1st among Top Law Schools

of Uttarakhand (Govt.& Pvt.) by CSR-GHRDC, 2020

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







submitted their written response. Advertiser in their

response stated that “ICFAI Business School,

Dehradun was recognised as the Best Business

School in Uttarakhand by Uttarakhand Educator

summit 2019. This summit was jointly organized by

Divya Himagiri & Utarakhand Technical University.

ICFAI Law School, Dehradun has been ranked #1 in

Uttarakhand state in the Law School rankings

announced by CSR GHRDC 2020.”


of the award certificate, and a copy of one page CSR-

GHRDC Law Schools Survey 2020 published in

Competition Success Review of June 2020.

As this response was inadequate, ASCI Secretariat

requested the advertiser to provide the details of the

survey methodology with the outcome of the survey,

and any financial transaction involved for

participating and/or receiving such award. However,

the advertiser did not submit this data in time for the

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) meeting.


considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

observed that the advertiser’s response had only

assertions about the claims. The advertiser has made

the said claims on the basis of the awards and

rankings given to their University. The CCC noted

that despite ASCI’s request, the advertiser did not


provide the details of the process as to how the

selection for the award was done i.e. survey

methodology, details of survey data, criteria used for

evaluation, questionnaires used, names of other

similar universities that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey and the details of the

awarding body. Advertiser also did not clarify

whether there was any direct or indirect payment

made by the advertiser to the Institution who had

granted the said awards – should this be added - ?.


the claims, “ICFAI Business School-Ranked Best

Business School in Uttarakhand by Uttarakhand

Educator Summit, 2019” and “ICFAI Law School-

1st among Top Law Schools of Uttarakhand (Govt.&

Pvt.) by CSR-GHRDC, 2020” were inadequately

substantiated and are misleading by exaggeration.


Guidelines for Advertising of Educational

Institutions and Programs, Clauses 7 and 8 i ii(ia)

ii(a b c) of the ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements as well as



41. @ 2011-C.1890 Rustomjie Educational

Trust-Rustomjie International School,Jalgaon

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Jalgaon Edition, Supplement

Hello Jalgaon (English) (20.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Great Place to Study Certified 2018 (Awarded at

London Parliament, London)”















observed that the advertiser, a group of educational

institutions, has made the claim on the basis of the

award received by their institute. However, the

advertiser did not support this claim with a copy of

the award certificate, reference of the award

received such as the source, the basis of the award or

the survey methodology followed to obtain this









concluded that the claim, “Great Place to Study

Certified 2018 (Awarded at London Parliament,

London)”, was not substantiated with supporting

ranking data.









UPHELD.

42. @ 2011-C.1892 Sri Duttakrupa

Shaikshanik & Krushi Gramvikas Pratishthan,

Ghargaon/Shri Duttakrupa Foundation,

Ahmednagar

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Ahmednagar Edition,

Supplement Hello Ahmednagar, (Marathi)

(31.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% business and job guarantee to passed out

students”

















concluded that the claim, “100% business and job


guarantee to passed out students”, was not














placed class.









UPHELD.

43. @ 2011-C.1894 The IEM-UEM Group-

University of Engineering & Management

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jodhpur Edition,

Main Issue, (Hindi) (19.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“UEM Jaipur 1st in Jaipur by “Prestigious Times

Higher Education Rankings"















observed that the advertiser’s is providing coaching

for Engineering, B. Tech with specialization,

Management, Computer Science, Physiotherapy, and

Ph.D courses. The advertiser has made the claim on

the basis of the rankings given to them by

`Prestigious Times Higher Education Rankings’.

However, the advertiser did not support this claim

with a copy of the award certificate, reference of the

award received as the source, the basis of the award

or the survey methodology followed to obtain this









concluded that the claim, “UEM Jaipur 1st in Jaipur

by “Prestigious Times Higher Education Rankings”,

was not substantiated with supporting ranking data.


advertisement.





I.5 of the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Usage

of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, and ASCI


and Programs. This complaint was UPHELD.

44. @ 2011-C.1895 Seacom Skills University

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran(*), Bhagalpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Job Assurance”
















Engineering, Maritime Studies, Management (BBA,

BCA, BBA in Hospital Management) and

Management in MBA & MCA course. Upon careful




that the claim, “100% Job Assurance” was not














placed class.










45. @ 2011-C.1896 Shri Ram Pharmacy (D)

College

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Akola Edition, Main Issue,

(Marathi) (25.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Assured Medical job for all those who have taken

admission here.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “Here Job mean self Job or self

employment D.Pharm Pass out can get license work

in any medical Stores. It is mandatory that only

License holder can work in medical Stores.

D.Pharm pass out may have own medical Stores

He/She may work in any Private nursing Home or

with any Doctor. May also work as M.R. (Medical

Representative).”


the print advertisement and considered the


advertiser has only made assertions about their claim.

Advertiser is offering coaching for DPharm courses

and is assuring students of medical jobs on

completion on these courses. In the absence of claim

support data, the CCC concluded that the claim,

“Assured Medical job for all those who have taken

admission here”, was not substantiated with authentic





their college in healthcare industry on completion of










to lead to grave or widespread disappointment in the

minds of students. The advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code as well as


Institutions and Programs, and ASCI Guidelines for




46. @ 2011-C.1897 Vakil Defence Academy

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Hissar Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. 100% Success Guarantee

2. The only institute of region giving more than

10000 selections

















defence courses. Upon careful consideration of the



“100% Success Guarantee” was not substantiated

with detailed list of students who were placed in the

defence sector, with copy of their selection

(appointment) letters in Indian Army, and their

contact details for independent verification by ASCI.

The claim was not backed by an independent third

party validation.

Claim, “The only institute of region giving more than

10000 selections” was not substantiated with


academy versus other similar defence

academies/institutes in the region, to prove that they

are the only institute who have given more than

10000 selections in Indian Army. The CCC noted

that the advertiser failed to establish the claim

through an independent third party validation.








47. @ 2011-C.1900 Teerthanker Mahaveer

University (TMU)

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar(*), Mumbai Edition,



Claim objected to:

“TMU awarded by Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister,

U.P in Hindustan Shiksha Shikhar Samman 2020-

Excellence in Qualified Faculty and Excellence in

Residential Facilities & programmes offered”
















the basis of the award received by their University.

However, the advertiser did not provide a copy of the

award certificate, reference of the award received

such as the source, the basis of the award such as the

details of the process as to how the selection for the

award was done, details of the criteria for granting

the award, survey methodology, parameters


similar universities that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and the details of the

awarding body. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “TMU

awarded by Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister, U.P in

Hindustan Shiksha Shikhar Samman 2020-

Excellence in Qualified Faculty and Excellence in

Residential Facilities & programmes offered”, was

not substantiated with supporting ranking data.






as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code,

and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings

in Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD.

48. @ 2011-C.1910 Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan

Chit Fund Pvt Ltd

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Chennai Edition,

Main Issue (Tamil) (19.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Most Trusted Chit Fund Company”















observed that the advertiser is promoting their chit

fund services inviting public to subscribe to their chit


fund. Upon careful consideration of the complaint

and in the absence of response from the advertiser,

the CCC concluded that the claim, “The Most

Trusted Chit Fund Company”, was not substantiated

with market survey data, or with verifiable

comparative data of advertiser’s company versus

other similar chit fund companies, to prove that they

are more trusted than all the rest, nor through a third-

party validation. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement. The claim is


grave disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

print advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4,


UPHELD.

49. @ 2011-C.1913 Shri Siddhi Vinayak

Group of Institutions (SSVGI)

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Bareilly Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi) (23.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Best Quality Education Awards

2. Best Private Polytechnic in Uttar Pradesh

3. Best Educationist in Uttar Pradesh
















the basis of the awards received by their institute.

However, the advertiser did not support these claims

with copy of the award certificates, reference of the

awards received as the source, the basis of the

awards or the survey methodologies followed to

obtain this information such as the details of the

process as to how the selection for the awards was

done, details of the criteria for granting the awards,


other institutes that were part of the survey, the




advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Best

Quality Education Awards”, “Best Private

Polytechnic in Uttar Pradesh,” and “Best Educationist

in Uttar Pradesh”, were not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The source for the claims










was UPHELD.

50. @ 2011-C.1914 Sarvajna Justice

ShivrajPatil Residential PU college of Science

MEDIUM: Vijay Karnataka(*), Gulbarg Edition,

Main Issue, (Kannada),(20.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 in JEE and NEET also”
















JEE and NEET exams. Upon careful consideration of


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1

in JEE and NEET”, was not substantiated with


versus other similar colleges, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) than all the rest for

providing coaching for JEE and NEET courses, nor

through a third-party validation. The source for the

claim was not indicated in the advertisement. The






and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4, and I.5


51. @ 2011-C.1915 Mahavir Shikshan

Sanstha-Tanishq School of Nursing

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat , Nagpur Edition, Main

Issue, (Marathi) (20.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Placement-Tanishq School of Nursing”
















GNM and R.A.N.M courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “100% Job Placement-Tanishq School

of Nursing” was not substantiated with authentic





their Institute in relevant industries on completion of


















52. @ 2011-C.1916 Sai Royale College of

Tourism & Hotel Management (Meerut)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*) Meerut Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Job Guarantee”
















Diploma in Tourism & Hotel Management, Degree

Programme in Hotel Administration , Diploma in

Airline Management, BBA,BCA, Polytechnic and

Advance Retail Management. Upon careful



that the claim, “Job Guarantee” was not substantiated

with authentic supporting data such as batch size of




placed through their Institute in Travel, Hotel, and

Airline industry on completion of their courses, their








placed class.





and Programs, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers


made in advertisements, as well as Chapters I.1, I.4



UPHELD.

53. @ 2011-C.1917 Techno India Group-TIG

School of Management

MEDIUM: Times of India(*) Kolkata Edition, Main

Issue, (English)(29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:















observed that the advertiser’s college/institute is


students. Upon careful consideration of the complaint



advertiser may be providing placement assistance to


the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “100%






the minds of students. The print advertisement





54. @ 2011-C.1918 Stani Memorial P.G.

College (SMPGC)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Jaipur Edition, Main

Issue, (English) (26.08.2020)


Claims objected to:


2. Ranked 1 among Best Colleges of Rajasthan by

India Today 2020

Objection:

Additionally, please also note that the above

claim“100% Placement Assistance”, was challenged

under complaint reference no. 1909-C.1860 is in

continued violation.















observed that the advertiser’s college is claiming that

it provides placement assistance to their students, and

is making a ranking claim based on the survey done

by India Today in 2020. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint and in the absence of any response

from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while

the advertiser may be providing placement assistance

to their students for getting jobs in relevant industry,





descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication.

Claim, “Ranked 1 among Best Colleges of Rajasthan

by India Today 2020” was not substantiated with a

copy of the award certificate, reference of the award

received such as the source, the basis of the awards or






colleges that were part of the survey, and the







advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4, and


Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, ASCI




55. @ 2011-C.1919 Sri Ramakrishna College

of Engineering

MEDIUM: Dinamalar, Trichy Edition, Main Issue,

(Tamil) (16.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

1st place at Perambalur, Ariyalur, Cuddalore District

level (in the Ranking List Published for Engineering

Colleges By Anna University)
















the basis of the ranking given by Anna University.



such as the source, the basis of the award such as the

details of the process as to how the selection for the

award was done, details of the criteria for granting



similar colleges that were part of the survey, the


awarding body. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “1st

place at Perambalur, Ariyalur, Cuddalore District

level (in the Ranking List Published for Engineering

Colleges By Anna University)”, was not

substantiated with supporting ranking data.






as well as Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code,



56. @ 2011-C.1920 Online Marketing

Institute and Training (O.M.I.T)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://drivespark.com)

(English) (23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Guaranteed”















(http://drivespark.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Digital

marketing course. Upon careful consideration of the



“100% Placement Guaranteed” was not substantiated



















Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code, and

ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in supporting,



57. @ 2011-C.1924 Mohali Nursing College

http://drivespark.com/

http://drivespark.com/


MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://freejobalert.com)

(English) (23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Become a Registered Nurse, On Job Training,

Placement Assurance”















(http://freejobalert.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for B.Sc. Nursing




“Become a Registered Nurse, On Job Training,

Placement Assurance” was not substantiated with





placed through their Institute in Healthcare industry,

relevant industries on completion of their nursing

courses, their appointment letters, list of students who

were not placed and the reason for their non-


certificate. Furthermore, the advertisement did not

have any disclaimers to indicate “Past record is no

guarantee of future job prospects” nor did it have a

declaration of the total number of students passing







Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code and ASCI




58. @ 2011-C.1927 Primus Techsystems Pvt

Ltd -Primus Sap Academy

MEDIUM: Digital Display,

(http://indianexpress.com) (English) (23.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Get 100% Placement in Top MNC”















(http://indianexpress.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for SAP FI, MM,

PP, SD, and ABAP courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “Get 100% Placement in Top MNC”

was not substantiated with authentic supporting data





Top MNC on completion of their courses, their








placed class.










59. @ 2011-C.1928 Poornima University

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://hsslive.in),

http://freejobalert.com/


http://indianexpress.com/

http://indianexpress.com/

http://hsslive.in/


(English) (18.10.2020)


Claims objected to:


2. Awarded as Top Private University of Rajasthan















and observed that the advertiser’s university is


students, and has made the claim on the basis of the

award received by them. Upon careful consideration


from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while


to their students for getting jobs in relevant


for “100% Placement Assistance” claim. There

cannot be a percentage assigned to any assistance

claim such as 40% or 80% assistance. The use of

“100%” as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by

implication.

Claim, “Awarded as Top Private University of

Rajasthan” was not substantiated with a copy of the


such as the source, the basis of the award or the








body. The source for the claim was not indicated in

the advertisement.



minds of consumers including students. The digital

display advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.2,

I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines

for Usage of Awards/ Rankings in Advertisements,

and ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational


UPHELD.

60. @ 2011-C.1929 Sri Balaji Educational

Trust-Shri Rajiv Gandhi IIT & NEET Academy


(http://deccanchronicle.com) (English) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“We assure 100% success by crash course in 30 days

with India’s top…”















(http://deccanchronicle.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for JEE and NEET

examinations. Upon careful consideration of the



“We assure 100% success by crash course in 30 days

with India’s top…” was not substantiated with

detailed list of students who have been successful in

JEE and NEET examinations after completion of the

crash course in 30 days through the advertiser’s

coaching institute, their contact details for

independent verification by ASCI, and copy of their

mark sheets/results. The CCC noted that the

advertiser failed to establish the claim through an

independent third party validation. The claim is



consumers including students. The digital display

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5

of the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for


Programs. This complaint was UPHELD.

61. @ 2011-C.1931 ParulArogyaSevaMandal

Trust Parul University

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://hirelateral.com),

http://deccanchronicle.com/

http://deccanchronicle.com/


(English) (22.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ranked No1 in Placements”















(http://hirelateral.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for B.Tech and

courses in 200+ programs. However, the advertiser

did not support the said claim with a copy of the

award certificate, reference of the award

received such as the source, the basis of the award or








body. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,


the CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked No1 in

Placements”, was not substantiated with supporting

ranking data. The source for the claim was not










was UPHELD.

62. @ 2011-C.1940 Neram Classes


(http://entrancezone.com) (English) (27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“# 1 NATA& JEE Paper 2 Classes”















(http://entrancezone.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for NATA & JEE

examinations. Upon careful consideration of the


the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “#

1 NATA& JEE Paper 2 Classes” was not


advertiser’s classes versus other similar coaching

classes to prove that they are in leadership position

(No.1) for NATA & JEE Paper 2 Classes. The CCC

noted that the advertiser failed to establish the claim

through an independent third party validation. The

source for the claim was not indicated in the

advertisement. The claim is misleading by




contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI

Code and ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of



63. @ 2011-C.1945 Quantum University


(http://indiastudychannel.com)(*) (English)

(21.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“More than 150 Recruiters,100% Placement”







http://hirelateral.com/

http://entrancezone.com/

http://entrancezone.com/

http://indiastudychannel.com)(*/










(http://indiastudychannel.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Hotel

Management course. Upon careful consideration of

the complaint and in the absence of any response

from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the

claim, “More than 150 Recruiters,100% Placement”





students who were placed through their University in

Hotel industry on completion of their courses, their








placed class.










64. @ 2011-C.2041 Mindreflex Technologies

Private Limited-21k School

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://news18.com)

(English) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s 1st Online School”






further guidance, which they did not avail but replied

requesting for an extension of time to submit their

detailed response. The deadlines stipulated by

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure

exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread

impact that advertisements have on the public.

Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken

with respect to the same is required to be prompt and

urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as

stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc.

and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with

every complaint before it as expeditiously as

possible. However, as a special gesture, the

advertiser was granted an extension of additional two

business days to respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “21K School

is an online school for home schooling kids. They are

a 100% online school with no physical campus. Their

students attend classes from over 25 cities and learn

their academic program from full-time teachers, on

their payroll from 8 different cities. With regards to

their claim of India’s first online school, the company

was registered on 03 March 2020 and the domain of

21Kschool.com was registered on 28th April 2020.

They publicly announced the launch of 21K School

as an Online School on 05th June 2020. As on that

date, there were no Online Schools in India. There

are many schools that offer online education but

none that is an Online School like 21K School.”

In support of their response, the advertiser referred to

two news article links –

(http://www.businessworld.in/article/India-s-first-

accredited-Online-School-K8-launched/20-08-2020-

311050/) and

(https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/indias-

first-accredited-online-school-k8-launched/1919566)

of Business magazine – Business World and Outlook

magazine.


(http://news18.com) and considered the advertiser’s

response. The CCC did not consider the news

coverage submitted by the advertiser to be acceptable

as relevant and credible evidence for the comparative

claim made in the advertisement. The CCC noted that

the links shared by the advertiser talked about the

launch of `K8 School’ being India's first accredited

full-fledged online school in August 2020. The CCC

also noted the advertiser’s response which had only

assertions about the claim. Advertiser asserted that

their company was registered on 3rd March 2020,

domain of 21Kschool.com was registered on 28th

April 2020, and the public announcement about the

launch of 21K School as an Online School was made

on 5th June 2020. As per the advertiser on that date,

there were no Online Schools in India.


http://indiastudychannel.com/

http://www.businessworld.in/article/India-s-first-accredited-Online-School-K8-launched/20-08-2020-311050/



https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/indias-first-accredited-online-school-k8-launched/1919566

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/indias-first-accredited-online-school-k8-launched/1919566


evidence of their school being registered in March

2020. Advertiser also did not submit registration

certificate, evidence of announcement made, detailed


enrolment, contact details of students for verification.

Also, the claim being comparative in nature, there

was no evidence of comparison provided in the form

of a market survey data or verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s school versus other online

schools in India to prove that their school is the first

to provide online home schooling. The claim was


validation.


concluded that the claim, “India’s 1st Online School”

was not substantiated. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of students. The digital

display advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines

for Advertising of Educational Institutions and

Programs, as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the

ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.

65. @ 2011-C.2042 Aditya Group of

Institutions-Aditya College of Design Studies

MEDIUM: Digital Display

(http://consumercomplaints.in) (English)

(27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Fashion Designing Degree @ ACDS-

100%Placement”















(http://consumercomplaints.in) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Fashion

Designing Degree courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “Fashion Designing Degree @ ACDS-

100%Placement” was not substantiated with





placed through their Institute in Fashion industry on


















66. @ 2011-C.2044 Ajay Kadam Associates

Pvt. Ltd-Akses-RCBD Software Training


(http://mytopbusinessideas.com) (English)

(29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's No.1 RCC Dsgn Software”















(http://mytopbusinessideas.com) and observed that

the advertiser is providing coaching for designing

Software course. Upon careful consideration of the



“India's No.1 RCC Dsgn Software” was not

http://consumercomplaints.in/

http://mytopbusinessideas.com/

http://mytopbusinessideas.com/



advertiser’s RCC design software versus other

similar RCC design softwares in India to prove that

their software is in the leadership position (No. 1) for

RCC design, or through an independent third party








Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This


67. @ 2011-C.2045 Bennett University(*)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://mensxp.com)

(English) (30.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Record In All Bathes by Top

Industry Recruiters”















(http://mensxp.com) and observed that the advertiser

is providing coaching for Undergraduate, post

graduate and Ph.D course. Upon careful



that the claim, “100% Placement Record In All

Bathes by Top Industry Recruiters” was not





students who were placed through their university in









placed class.










68. @ 2011-C.2048 Crystal Analytix


(http://tutorialspoint.com) (English) (26.08.2020)


Claim objected to:
















(http://tutorialspoint.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing training for Data Science














http://mensxp.com/

http://tutorialspoint.com/
















69. @ 2011-C.2050 EduPristine

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://1001fonts.com)

(English) (14.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















(http://1001fonts.com) and observed that the

advertiser is claiming to provide placement

assistance to their students. Upon careful



that while the advertiser may be providing placement







implication and is likely to lead to widespread




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


70. @ 2011-C.2051 Eeci GATE - GATE

Coaching

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://gosugamers.net)

(English) (12.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Min.700 GATE Score Guarantee”














The CCC viewed the the digital display

advertisement (http://gosugamers.net) and observed

that the advertiser is providing coaching for GATE,

PUS and IES exams. Upon careful consideration of

the complaint, and in the absence of any response


claim, “Min.700 GATE Score Guarantee” was not

substantiated with detailed list of all their students,

list of those students who scored a min 700 in their

GATE exams, their contact details for independent

verification by ASCI, and copy of their scorecards,

nor the claim was backed by a third party validation.








71. @ 2011-C.2053 Excel Academy

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://english-test.net)

(English) (12.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. No.1 IELTS online class Mumbai

2. Join the Best Academy



http://1001fonts.com/

http://gosugamers.net/

http://gosugamers.net/

http://english-test.net/














(http://english-test.net) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for IELTS course.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 IELTS online

class Mumbai” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s online classes

versus other similar online classes in Mumbai, to

prove that their classes is in leadership position

(No.1) for IELTS coaching, or through an

independent third party validation. The source for the

claim was not indicated in the advertisement.

Claim, “Join the Best Academy” was not

substantiated with market survey data and with


academy versus other similar academies to prove that

they are better than all the rest for IELTS coaching,

or through an independent third party validation.



minds of students. The digital display advertisement





72. @ 2011-C.2054 Financial Planning

Academy

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://jobs.mitula.in)

(English) (03.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Assistance”














(http://jobs.mitula.in) and observed that the

advertiser’s academy is claiming that it provides

placement assistance to their students. Upon careful
















73. @ 2011-C.2055 Greens Technology

Software Training & Placements

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://javatpoint.com)

(English) (09.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Job"















(http://javatpoint.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing training for Python, Oracle,

Selenium, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Data

Warehouse, Java, Sharepoint, Software Testing,

Informatica, Blockchain, Dot Net, Oracle DBA,

Hadoop, SAS, R Language, Tableau, Power BI,

http://english-test.net/

http://jobs.mitula.in/

http://jobs.mitula.in/

http://javatpoint.com/

http://javatpoint.com/


Xamarin, Node.js, ReactJS, UNIX SHELL Scripting,

C and C++, courses. Upon careful consideration of



claim, “100% Job” was not substantiated with























74. @ 2011-C.2056 Gurukul Agri

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://studyrankers.com)

(English) (27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s Largest AFO Community”















(http://studyrankers.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for AFO exams.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s Largest AFO

Community” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s Agriculture

coaching centre versus other similar coaching centres

in India, to prove that the their Agriculture coaching

centre is larger than all the rest, or through an









75. @ 2011-C.2057 Hitech Film and

Broadcast Academy


(http://indiaeducation.net) (English) (30.08.2020)


Claim objected to:















(http://indiaeducation.net) and observed that the

advertiser’s academy is claiming that it provides


















http://indiaeducation.net/

http://indiaeducation.net/



76. @ 2011-C.2058 Image Infotainment Ltd-

ICAT Design & Media College

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://recruitment.guru)

(English) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

"India’s 1st college to introduce Bachelors Degree in

Gaming"















(http://recruitment.guru) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Bachelor’s

Degree in Gaming. Upon careful consideration of the



“India’s 1st college to introduce Bachelor’s Degree in

Gaming”, was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s college versus

other similar colleges in India, to prove that their

college is the first to introduce Bachelor’s Degree in

Gaming, nor through an independent third party

validation.








77. @ 2011-C.2060 IIPC - Digital Marketing

Course

MEDIUM: Digital Video (http://youtube.com)

(English) (26.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s No.1 practical training institute (Voice over

Claim)”














The CCC viewed the digital video advertisement and


IIPC exams. Upon careful consideration of the


the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the voice over

claim, “India’s No.1 practical training institute” was

not substantiated with verifiable comparative data of

the advertiser’s training institute versus other similar

training institutes in India, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1), nor through an





students. The digital video advertisement





78. @ 2011-C.2063 Indian Institute for

Aeronautical Engineering & Information

Technology

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://enggwave.com)

(English) (16.10.2020)


Claim objected to:










http://recruitment.guru/








(http://enggwave.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is claiming that it provides

















79. @ 2011-C.2064 Indus University


(http://electronicshub.org) (English) (27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement in Computer Related Fields”















(http://electronicshub.org) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for BCA and MCA

courses. Upon careful consideration of the complaint



Placement in Computer Related Fields” was not





students who were placed through their University in

Computer Science and Computing related fields on


















80. @ 2011-C.2067 Institute of Design &

Technology (IDT)d

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://sarkariresult.com)

(English) (14.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















(http://sarkariresult.com) and observed that the










http://electronicshub.org/

http://sarkariresult.com/

http://sarkariresult.com/










81. @ 2011-C.2068 Jain (Deemed-to-be

University)


(http://Indiastudychannel.com) (English)

(23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:















(http://Indiastudychannel.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s university is claiming that it provides

















82. @ 2011-C.2069 Jaypee University of

Information Technology (JUIT)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://gizbot.com)

(English) (28.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Best Private University in Himachal Pradesh

2. JUIT Department of Biotechnology &

Bioinformatics ranked no. 1 among pvt univ. in India















(http://gizbot.com) and observed that the advertiser is

providing coaching for B.Tech, Bio and Bio-Tech

courses. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best

Private University in Himachal Pradesh” was not

substantiated with market survey data or with

verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s university

versus other similar universities in Himachal Pradesh

to prove that their university is a better private

university than all the rest, nor through an


Claim, “JUIT Department of Biotechnology &

Bioinformatics ranked no. 1 among pvt univ. in

India” was not substantiated with a copy of the award

certificate, reference of the award received such as

the source, the basis of the award or the survey









the advertisement.





I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for


http://gizbot.com/

http://gizbot.com/




UPHELD.

83. @ 2011-C.2070 Learnbay Technologies-

Learnbay

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://codejava.net)

(English) (07.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement record”















(http://codejava.net) and observed that the advertiser

is providing coaching for Python, C/C++, Data

structures and algorithms and Linux System

programming. Upon careful consideration of the



“100% Placement record” was not substantiated with























84. @ 2011-C.2072 Lingayas Vidyapeeth

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://lyricsmint.com)

(English) (06.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















(http://lyricsmint.com) and observed that the


















85. @ 2011-C.2073 Lloyd Law College

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://rediff.com)

(English) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ranked #1 in pvt. colleges offering highest salary

placement, India Today Survey 2019-20”


http://codejava.net/

http://lyricsmint.com/















(http://rediff.com) and observed that the advertiser is

providing coaching for BA.LL.B and LL.B courses.

The claim has been made based on the ranking given

to their college by India Today Survey 2019-20.

However, the advertiser did not support this claim

with a copy of the award certificate, reference of the

award received such as the source, the basis of the

award or the survey methodology followed to obtain

this information such as the details of the process as

to how the selection for the award was done, details

of the criteria for granting the award, parameters


colleges that were part of the survey, the outcome of




concluded that the claim, “Ranked #1 in pvt. colleges

offering highest salary placement, India Today

Survey 2019-20” was not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The claim is misleading by




contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, and ASCI



86. @ 2011-C.2095 Digital Marketing

Training Institute (DMTI)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://ssgcp.com)

(English) (27.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Practical Class Job Assistance”














(http://ssgcp.com) and observed that the advertiser’s

institute is claiming that it provides Practical Class

job assistance to their students. Upon careful



that while the advertiser may be providing job



for “100% Practical Class Job Assistance” claim.

There cannot be a percentage assigned to any





The digital display advertisement contravened ASCI


and Programs as well as Chapters I.4 and I.5 of the


87. @ 2011-C.2096 Exampur


(http://sarkariresultsearch.com) (English)

(07.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India No.1 Online Coaching for UP Lekhpal

examination”















and observed that the advertiser is providing

http://rediff.com/

http://ssgcp.com/


coaching for UP Lekhpal examination. Upon careful



that the claim, “India No.1 Online Coaching for UP

Lekhpal examination” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s online

coaching centre versus other online coaching centres

in India to prove that they are in leadership position

(No.1) for providing online coaching for UP Lekhpal

examination, nor the claim was backed by an










88. @ 2011-C.2097 Game Institute

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://ufreegames.com)

(English) (11.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement Record

2. Join India’s award winning institute















(http://ufreegames.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for Gaming,

Animation and Visual FX course. Upon careful



that the claim, “100% Placement Record” was not














placed class.

Claim, “Join India’s award winning institute” was not

substantiated with a copy of the award certificate,

reference of the award received such as the source,

the basis of the award or the survey methodology

followed to obtain this information such as the details

of the process as to how the selection for the award

was done, details of the criteria for granting the

award, parameters considered, questionnaires used,

names of other institutes that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey, and the details about the







I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for




UPHELD.

89. @ 2011-C.2100 Suresh GyanVihar

University

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://india.com)

(English) (14.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“SGVU-No.1 Private University of Rajasthan with

NAAC “A” grade accreditation”














http://ufreegames.com/



(http://india.com). Upon careful consideration of the



“SGVU-No.1 Private University of Rajasthan with

NAAC “A” grade accreditation” was not


advertiser’s university versus other private

universities in Rajasthan, to prove that their

university is in the leadership position (No.1) than all

the rest for having NAAC “A” grade accreditation,

nor through an independent third party validation.


advertisement.








90. @ 2011-C.2101 Henry Harvin Education




Claim objected to:

“CSSE- No.1 Certification India”
















advertiser is offering coaching for Six Sigma Green

Belt certification course. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint, and in the absence of any response


claim, “CSSE- No.1 Certification India”, was not



India to prove that the certification provided by their

institute (CSSE) is in the leadership position (No. 1),

nor through an independent third party validation.

The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The digital





91. @ 2011-C.2102 IIFA Multimedia

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://caknowledge.in)

(English) (11.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s No.1 design college”















(http://caknowledge.in) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for B. Sc, M. Sc,

MBA and master diploma courses. Upon careful



that the claim, “India’s No.1 design college” was not


advertiser’s college versus other similar design

colleges in India, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No. 1), nor through an independent third

party validation. The source for the claim was not









92. @ 2011-C.2103 Mailam Engineering

College


(http://sarkarinaukridaily.in) (English) (02.10.2020)

http://india.com/



http://caknowledge.in/



Claim objected to:

“India Today Ranking 2020 - Ranked 1 in

Villupuram, Tiruvannamalai and Cuddalore district”















(http://sarkarinaukridaily.in) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for various

engineering courses. Advertiser has made the claim

on the basis of the ranking granted to them by India

Today in 2020. However, the advertiser did not

support this claim with a copy of the award

certificate, reference of the award received such as

the source, the basis of the award or the survey






colleges that were part of the survey, the outcome of




concluded that the claim, “India Today Ranking 2020

- Ranked 1 in Villupuram, Tiruvannamalai and

Cuddalore district”, was not substantiated with

supporting ranking data. The source for the claim










was UPHELD.

93. @ 2011-C.2106 Sunshine Techno System

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://gradesaver.com)

(English) (12.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Assistance”














(http://gradesaver.com) and observed that the

advertiser is claiming that it provides Job Assistance

to their students. Upon careful consideration of the


the advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the

advertiser may be providing job assistance to their

students for getting jobs in relevant industries, the use

of 100% numerical is not relevant for “100% Job











94. @ 2011-C.2108 Ankalan Web Solutions

Pvt Ltd-Top Rankers

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://merriam-

webster.com) (English) (13.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s No.1 Online Coaching marketplace”








http://sarkarinaukridaily.in/

http://gradesaver.com/

http://gradesaver.com/









(http://merriam-webster.com). Upon careful



that the claim, “India’s No.1 Online Coaching

marketplace” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s online coaching

centre versus other online coaching centres in India,

to prove that their online coaching marketplace is in

the leadership position (No.1), nor through an










95. @ 2011-C.2110 Vajirao& Reddy Institute

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://esakal.com)

(English) (30.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“IAS Achievers 1st Choice”















(http://esakal.com). Upon careful consideration of



claim, “IAS Achievers 1st Choice” was not

substantiated with verifiable survey data done

amongst students in general (and not from the

advertiser’s institute alone), to prove that their

institute was the first choice among all other similar

institutes for IAS achievers. The claim was not

backed by an independent third party validation. The








FSSAI Complaints:

96. @ 2011-C.1864 Bambino Agro Industries

Ltd – Bambino (Haldi Doodh Ashwagandha Mix)

MEDIUM: Bhakti TV (Telugu) (01.10.2020) (15

Secs) (6:25:22)


Claims objected to:

1. Boost Immunity Power

2. Reduce High Blood Pressure

Objection:

Ad shows visual of virus implying that consumption

of the product in the current pandemic scenario

protects you from covid














The CCC viewed the TVC (in Telugu) and observed

that the advertiser is promoting Turmeric milk -

`Haldi Doodh Ashwagandha Mix’. However, the

advertiser did not provide product specific

information such as composition / licence / pack

artwork or samples, scientific rationale for the

product claims. The CCC also noted that the

advertiser did not provide any evidence of presence

of ingredients responsible for the claimed benefits.


the absence of any comments or response from the


http://merriam-webster.com/

http://esakal.com/

http://esakal.com/


“Boost Immunity Power and “Reduce High Blood

Pressure” were not substantiated with clinical

evidence of product efficacy.


likely to lead to grave disappointment in the minds of

consumers. TVC shows a visual of virus which is

misleading as it implies that consumption of the said

milk in the current pandemic scenario protects from

COVID. The TVC contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, and

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

97. @ 2011-C.1867 Rebel Foods Pvt Ltd

(Oven Story Pizza)

MEDIUM: Zing (English) (05.09.2020) (10 Secs)

(7:34:16)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Publicis Comms Pvt.

Ltd(*)


Claim objected to:

“Safest Pizza in Town”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they did not avail and


Advertiser stated that “they would like to shed some

light towards the process that is strictly adhered to

during the preparation of these pizzas. The pizza at

its making is heated at a temperature of 230 degree

Celsius at which no microorganism, bacteria or virus

could survive. The pizza is never allowed to come

into a direct physical contact during the preparation

process. Pizzas are ensured to be double packed.

This addresses the issue of multiple hand contact

with the food/pizza. Their company throughout all

its brands, follows the WHO guidelines for the

COVID-19 pandemic of frequent hand-washing,

sanitization, mask-wearing and cleaning guidelines

multiple times daily. These guidelines are followed by

all staff members, including their delivery riders.

The customer is provided with an option of

contactless delivery. If such an option is selected by

the customer, the delivery personnel ensures that the

food is delivered at the doorstep without coming in

contact with the customer at all.”

Advertiser provided copy of the TVCs that are being

currently aired by them and a copy of the storyboard.


the TVC and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC noted that the advertiser’s response has

only assertions regarding their claim. The advertiser

is promoting their food product – Oven Story pizza

claiming it to be the safest pizza in town. The CCC

did not agree with the advertiser’s assertions

provided as claim substantiation. Advertiser did not

provide any support data or evidence of comparison

with other advertisers of Pizza brands to prove that

their Pizza is the safest Pizza in town. The CCC also

noted that the basis of comparison was not stated in

the advertisement.


concluded that the claim, “Safest Pizza in Town”,

was not substantiated with verifiable comparative

data or market survey data. The claim is misleading

by omission and exaggeration and is likely to lead to

grave or widespread disappointment in the minds of



UPHELD.

The CCC noted that the advertiser has agreed to

modify their advertisement as per CCC

recommendations.

98. @ 2011-C.1868 The Soumi's Can Product

- Soumis Can Pure Pickles

MEDIUM: Calcutta News (Bengali) (27.08.2020)

(10 Secs) (12:26:03)


Claim objected to:

“Soumis Can Pure Pickles”

(Does the product fulfil the FSSAI criteria to claim

Pure)















that the advertiser is promoting a Food product –

“Soumis Can Pure Pickles”, claiming that it is pure

pickle. However, the advertiser did not submit any

product specific details such as composition / licence


/ pack artwork or samples, and any evidence of

presence of ingredients in the pickle. There was no

test reports or clinical data submitted for the product

to be pure. Advertiser also did not provide evidence

for the claim being in compliance with FSSAI

Guidelines.


the absence of comments from the advertiser, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “Soumis Can Pure

Pickles”, was not substantiated. The claim is


grave and widespread disappointment in the minds of


I.5, and III.4 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

99. @ 2011-C.1869 Dakshina Kannada Co –

Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd – Nandini

Kashaya Milk

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Mangalore Edition,



Claim objected to:

“To Increase Immunity Against COVID-19, Heat &

Drink Nandini Decoction”















observed that the advertiser is promoting a milk

product - `Nandini Kashaya Milk’ claiming that the

product increases Immunity Against COVID-19.

However, the advertiser did not provide any product

specific information such as copy of product label,

product approval license and they also did not

provide any scientific rationale or clinical evidence of

product efficacy, to prove the product’s ability in

increasing Immunity Against COVID-19.



CCC concluded that the claim, “To Increase

Immunity Against COVID-19, Heat & Drink Nandini

Decoction”, was not substantiated. The claim is



consumers. The print advertisement contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This


100. @ 2011-C.1880 PhoolMarka Ghee

(MunnalalDwarkadas)

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Kolkata Edition,

Main Issue (Hindi) (15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Best Quality Ghee”















observed that the advertiser is promoting their Ghee

product. Upon careful consideration of the complaint


the CCC concluded that the claim, “The Best Quality

Ghee”, was not substantiated with market survey

data, or with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s product versus other similar Ghee

products to prove that the quality of their Ghee is

better than all the rest, or through a third-party


and is likely to lead to grave disappointment in the

minds of consumers. The print advertisement

contravened Chapters I.1, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI


101. @ 2011-C.1882 Vsure Farm Fresh Cow

Milk

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Aligarh Edition,



Claim objected to:

“The purest & tastiest milk you can find for your


family”















observed that the advertiser is promoting cow milk –

`Vsure’. the advertiser did not provide any product

specific information such as copy of product label,

product composition details, product approval

license, and FSSAI approval for the claim made.

They also did not provide test reports or clinical data

to prove the milk to be purest and tastiest.



CCC concluded that the claim of “The purest &

tastiest milk you can find for your family” was not


exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave and





102. @ 2011-C.1883 Sresta Natural Bio-

Products (24 Mantra Organic Range of Products)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Chandigarh Edition,



Claim objected to:

“More: Antioxidants, Minerals and Fiber Content”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







submitted their written reply.

Advertiser in their reply acknowledged receipt of

ASCI’s mail and stated that “they would get back on

the same at the earliest.” However the advertiser did

not provide their response to the complaint in time

for the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

meeting.


considered the advertiser’s reply. The advertiser is

promoting their range of food items – Organic

Peanut, Organic Sesame Bar, Organic Jaggery

powder, Organic Sugar, claiming to have `More:

Antioxidants | Minerals | Fiber content’. However,

the CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide

any specific information for the products such as

copy of Product approval license, product label,

Product composition details, nor any evidence of

presence of ingredients in the product. The advertiser

also did not provide any data to prove that the

advertised product has more antioxidants, minerals,

and fiber content. The advertiser has not specified

whether the claim has been made in comparison to

other similar organic products. The CCC was of the

view that the claim would mislead consumers that in

addition to the ingredients present, the content of

antioxidants, minerals, and fiber is more in the

products.


concluded that the claim, “More: Antioxidants |

Minerals | Fiber content” was not substantiated. The

claim is misleading by exaggeration and implication


the minds of consumers. The print advertisement

contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI


103. @ 2011-C.1886 Dhameja Home

Industries – (Dhameja Gold Masale)

MEDIUM: EP NaiDuniya(*), Indore Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (29.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“First Choice of Ideal Housewives”

















of masala products . Upon careful consideration of


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “First

Choice of Ideal Housewives”, was not substantiated


comparative data of the advertiser’s product versus

other similar masale products, to prove that their

product is the first choice among all ideal

housewives, or through a third-party validation. The






104. @ 2011-C.1888 Shree Kailash Grain Mills

Pvt Ltd – Golden Bansi Premium Quality

Premium Quality Kesari Rawa

MEDIUM: Eenadu(*), Kurnool Edition, Main Issue

(Telugu) (15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Quality Bansi Wheat Product”















observed that the advertiser is promoting their food

product - `Golden Bansi Kesari Rawa’. Upon careful



the claim, “No.1 Quality Bansi Wheat Product”, was

not substantiated with market survey data, or with

verifiable comparative data of the market share by

value/volume of the advertiser’s brand versus all

other similar wheat brands, to prove that their brand

is in the leadership position (No.1) for quality, nor

the claim was backed by a third-party validation. The


advertisement.


to lead to grave disappointment in the minds of


Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This


105. @ 2011-C.1904 Murarka Group of

Industries – Muskaan Foods (Range of Products)

MEDIUM: Sambad, Cuttack Edition, Main Issue

(English) (15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Best Choice”
















of food products – biscuits, spices, and snacks, and

claims their products to be the best choice of the

consumers.



concluded that the claim, “The Best Choice”, was not

substantiated with market survey data, or with

verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s products

versus other similar range of food products, to prove

that their products are a better choice than all the rest,

nor the claim was backed by a third-party validation.






106. @ 2011-C.1905 DSM Fresh Foods Pvt.

Ltd. – Zappfresh.com

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), New Delhi Edition,




Claim objected to:

“Fastest, Freshest & Cleanest”















observed that the advertiser is promoting online

delivery of chicken meat. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint and in the absence of response from


“Fastest, Freshest & Cleanest”, was not substantiated


comparative data of the advertiser’s company versus

all other similar meat delivery companies, to prove

that their food products are faster in delivery, fresher,

and cleaner than all the rest, nor through a third-party






107. @ 2011-C.1906 Shri Hari Masala – Range

of Products

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar(*), Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue (Gujarati) (22.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“First Choice of Lakhs of Housewives”
















of masala products. Upon careful consideration of



Choice of Lakhs of Housewives”, was not


verifiable comparative data of advertiser’s masala

products versus all other similar range of masala

products, to prove that the advertiser’s products are

the first choice among lakhs of housewives, nor

through a third-party validation. The source for the





Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This


108. @ 2011-C.1907 NIF Private Limited –

Namaste India Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), New Delhi Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. Best Procurement Team

2. Best Quality-Check Team

3. Best Delivery Team















observed that the advertiser is promoting milk, curd,

and other dairy products. Upon careful consideration

of the complaint and in the absence of response from


“Best Procurement Team”, “Best Quality-Check

Team”, and “Best Delivery Team”, were not




company versus all other similar companies selling

milk, curd, and dairy products, to prove that their

procurement team, quality-check team, and delivery

team is better than all the rest, nor the claims were

backed by an independent third-party validation.

The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The print



AYUSH Complaints:

109. @ 2011-C.1862 Caram Healthcare India

Pvt Ltd (Jwar Amrutam Tablets)

MEDIUM: Power TV (Kannada) (20.09.2020) (30

Secs) (8:15:56)


Claims objected to:

1. India’s Most Powerful Ayurvedic Tablet

2. 5 Qualities Like Immunity Booster, Antiviral, Anti

Bacterial, Blood Purifier & Lung Protective








The advertiser in their reply acknowledged the

receipt of ASCI mail and stated that “the complaint

has been forwarded to their solicitors/legal firms for

further action and follow up.” ASCI Secretariat

followed up with the advertiser by a reminder mail

requesting for their response by the stipulated due

date. However, the advertiser did not submit their

response in time for the Consumer Complaints

Council (CCC) meeting.

The CCC viewed the TVC (in Kannada) and

considered the advertiser’s reply. The CCC observed

that the advertiser is promoting their ayurvedic

medicine -– ‘Jwar Amrutam Tablets’ claiming it to

be India’s most powerful Ayurvedic Tablet. The

TVC also highlights the product qualities of being an

Immunity Booster, Antiviral, Anti Bacterial, purifies

blood and protects Lung. However, the advertiser

did not provide any specific information for the

product such as copy of product approval license,

product label, product composition details, nor any

scientific or technical rationale for the product

claims. The CCC also noted that the advertiser did

not provide any evidence of presence of ingredients

in the tablet responsible for the claimed health

benefits. There was no study data provided of the

product that demonstrated the claimed benefits. In

the absence of claim support data, the CCC

concluded that the claim (in Kannada) as translated in

English, “5 Qualities Like Immunity Booster,

Antiviral, Anti Bacterial, Blood Purifier & Lung

Protective”, was not substantiated with product

efficacy data.

Claim, “India’s Most Powerful Ayurvedic Tablet”

was not substantiated with any market survey data, or

verifiable comparative data, or comparative tests

reports conducted of the advertiser’s product versus

other similar ayurvedic product brands available in

India, to prove that their product is most powerful

compared to all the rest, nor the claim was backed by

an independent third party validation.



minds of consumers. The TVC contravened



110. @ 2011-C.1909 GaikwadAyurvedic Clinic

– AyushKwath Tablet (Ayurvedic Immunity

Booster)

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Ahmednagar Edition,

Supplement Hello Ahmednagar (Marathi)

(23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Remove Fat Lumps Permanently”















observed that the advertiser is promoting an

ayurvedic immunity booster tablet and indicates that

the said product has multiple benefits. However, the


information such composition / licence / pack


artwork or samples, scientific rationale for the

product claims. The CCC also noted that the

advertiser did not provide any evidence of presence

of ingredients responsible for the claimed benefits.




“Remove Fat Lumps Permanently” was not

substantiated with clinical evidence of product

efficacy. The claim is misleading by exaggeration


minds of consumers particularly patients suffering

from fat (lumps). The print advertisement



2012-CCC.23


[email protected]

111. W 2011-C.2122 Franke Faber India

Private Limited (Hood Primus Plus Energy TC

HC BK-N 60)

MEDIUM: Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar Edition

(01.11.2020)

Product Packaging


Claims objected to:

1. Faber - India’s No. 1 Kitchen Chimneys and Hobs

Company!

2. Suction – 1500 m3/hr

Complaint:

“Suction 1500 meter cube per hour is fake as per data

collected from siemens bosch and ifb international

brands, claim in there catalogue. Advertisers should

be asked for this false leading claim. Advertisement

in jalandhar kesari sunday 1 november.

Sir faber dealer refused to write suction 1500 meter

cube on bill. And further the company end sales

person present in the company showroom was unable

to provide any measuring device. He was requested

to provide any government approved certification or

laboratory certification for there claims in catalogue

and advertisement. Further he showed box written no

1 kitchen chimney brand. On asking who certified

you as no 1 brand again no answer. Big news in the

newspaper made me very clear about this fake

misleading ad by faber.

While importing from china proforma invoice and

certification is needed which should be asked from

faber against their claims 1500 meter cube per hour.

This product is to be sold to consumers all over India.

And it is right of the consumer to know about the

standard quality quantity potency of the product

purchased.

I feel bad when I see companies advertising their

products with wrong specifications to innocent

consumers. I assure that there will be no certification

laboratory test with faber in there claims about 1500

meter cube per hour.”













Claim – “Faber - India’s No. 1 Kitchen Chimneys

and Hobs Company!” – In response to this objection,

the advertiser stated that “their claim is based on data

published by Euromonitor Inc (the leading agency

publishing market size estimates and brand shares

for multiple categories of large appliances and

domains across the globe) for the India Market. The

data comprehensively validates their claim of

leadership position in Large Kitchen Appliances,

Cooker Hoods and Hobs.”

Claim - “Suction – 1500 m3/hr” – Advertiser stated

that “Hoods as a product category is currently not

governed by any statutory certification nor is it

covered as a product category under mandatory BIS

certification. Their claim on the said product is

based on product validation done internally in their

own lab which is BIS certified and this claim is

further validated by the findings certified by a

reputed third-party lab.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided – 1)

Copy of the print advertisement, 2) Copy of the front

and back of Product packaging, 3) Euromonitor

International Report of January 2020 for `Large

Cooking Appliances in India’, 4) Hood Primus

Energy Carton, 5) AirFlow Primus Claim Internal

Test Report, 6) Third party laboratory report.


the print advertisement and the product packaging

and considered the advertiser’s response along with

the supporting data provided by them.

The CCC reviewed the Euromonitor report and

observed that in the category of `NBO Company

mailto:[email protected]


Shares of Built-in Hobs: % Volume 2015-2019`,

`NBO Company Shares of Cooker Hoods: % Volume

2015-2019’ and `NBO Company Shares of

Freestanding Cooker Hoods: % Volume 2015-2019’,

the advertiser’s name (Faber Heatkraft Industries

Ltd) was listed in the No.1 position amongst other

manufacturers of cooking appliances in India.

The CCC also reviewed the two laboratory reports

submitted of March 2020 for the air suction test

conducted. The results of these tests showed the air

flow capacity as 1542.42 m3/h and 1542.46 m3/h.

Based on the advertiser’s response with the

supporting data provided, the CCC concluded that the

print advertisement claim, “Suction – 1500 m3/hr”,

and the product packaging claim, “Faber - India’s

No. 1 Kitchen Chimneys and Hobs Company!” were

substantiated. The print advertisement and the

product packaging was not in contravention of

Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

NOT UPHELD.

112. OC 2011-C.2123 Zomato Private

Limited– (Zomato)

MEDIUM: ZEE TAMIL (THIRAI) (*), VENDER

TV (TAMIL), Leading English & Hindi TV

Channels

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n09j7hcU-IA)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: MagicCircle

Communications Private Limited


“This is to bring to your kind notice that, as we all

know that advertisement are use to promote

manufacture and their product to reach public in a

decent manner, at any cost that may not degrade our

culture ethics and practice, but unfortunately

ZOMATO food delivery app defaming basic our

household culture i.e., COOKING which is highly

disturbing, past one week do so their advertisement

telecast by the National Television Channels during

program break in ZEE TAMIL (THIRAI) VENDER

TV (TAMIL) this advertisement comes both in

HINDI AND TAMIL also in LEADING ENGLISH

AND HINDI TV CHANNELS

ZOMATO is a like call center, they dont have

anyauthority to say ONLINE FOOD IS SAFE

through its food delivery business, Zomato charges a

commission to the restaurants on the basis of orders.

While users pay a delivery fee, Zomato earns through

restaurants that pay a commission for each delivery,

which is then split among the delivery partner and the

company.

NARATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT:

Family in the picture (PRENTS, FATHER,

MOTHER AND THEIR SON)

1: - Son opening the food box and enjoys the smell of

food (shahiPanner) Aaahhha he mesmerized .

2 - Father: Asking who camelooks like shouting

seeing his son with joy Ah shahipanner asking his

son, you are hiding and eating not shamed..

3- Son: BABA. online food haySafe hay na (It safe

know) Then why you are not inform –

4-Father: REPETING Food Delivery safe. then why

you are not informs, you dont feel ashamed of it ?

Eating home cooked food without any taste in the

past.

5-Again says, order karo ..Order it now, Chicken

Briyani, Chicken 65Bread Halwa

6-Mother: Order Karo. (Order it) buy her body

language

7-Son: Over joy baba.

ZOMATO ABJACTIONAL CONTENT OF THIS

ADVERTIMENT IS : Degrading Homely cooking at

home by misleading the younger generation that lead

to encouraging restaurant and hotel food Culture

encouragingNOT to COOK AT HOME ( how they

justify it)

How they says that ONLINE FOOD DELIVERY IS

SAFE? Are they conducting test like food safety

standard as per FSSAI standard before delivering it to

consumer.

Food Delivery safe, then why you are not informs us,

Shame on you, this must days we are eating with

tasty home food.

CONCLUTION

ZOMATO is a like call center, they dont have any

authority to say ONLINE FOOD IS SAFE through its

food delivery business, Zomato charges a

commission to the restaurants on the basis of orders.

While users pay a delivery fee, Zomato earns through

restaurants that pay a commission for each delivery,

which is then split among the delivery partner and the

company.

Therefore, I am requesting ASCI to take appropriate

action to correct the narration or stop this

advertisement.”













Objection 1 - `Zomato food delivery app defaming

basic our household culture i.e., cooking’ – In

response to this objection, the advertiser stated that

“it is a matter of personal choice and preference

whether a person wants to opt for home delivery of

food or eat home cooked food. The advertisement is

a very fair and reasonable method of advertising and

promoting food delivery without defaming the

household culture of cooking in any manner. Zomato

has not directly or indirectly defamed the basic

household culture of cooking in any manner

whatsoever.”

Objection 2 - `Zomato is a like call center, they don’t

have any authority to say Online Food Is Safe’ -

Advertiser stated that “Zomato has not made any

independent claim stating that food delivery is safe. A

footnote in the advertisement clearly mentions

towards the end that ‘WHO says food delivery is

safe’. Since it is the official position taken by the

WHO, Zomato has attributed the source of this

information in the advertisement. Dr. Michael Ryan

of the WHO has categorically stated that “People

should not fear food or food packaging or the

processing or delivery of food” and “...people should

feel comfortable and feel safe”. The fact that the

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had

notified orders and guidelines to the various states

and union territories in India allowing home delivery

of food during the lockdown imposed by the

government in itself negates the view that home

delivery of food is not safe.”

Advertiser in their response presented examples of

such orders and guidelines notified by the MHA:

Paragraph 2 on page 1 of MHA Order 1 clearly

recognizes home delivery of food as supply of

essential goods.

Section 4 (e) on page 1 of Annexure to Ministry of

Home Affairs Order No. 40-3/2020-D dated

24.03.2020 (“MHA Order 2”) and Section 4 (e) on

page 2 of Consolidated Guidelines on the measures to

be taken by Ministries/ Departments of Government

of India, State/Union Territory Governments and

State/ Union Territory Authorities for containment of

COVID-19 Epidemic in the Country……. (“MHA

Guidelines”) clearly state that “district authorities

may encourage and facilitate home delivery to

minimize the movement of individuals outside their

homes”, “Delivery of all essential goods including

food, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment through E-

commerce” as an exception to closure of commercial

and private establishments during the COVID-19

pandemic outbreak.

Advertiser in their response also listed the `Standard

Operating Procedure’ followed by them.

In support of their response, the advertiser provided –

(1) Copy of the TVC, (2) Transcript of COVID-19

Virtual Press Conference of the World Health

Organisation (WHO), (3) Order No. 40-3/2020-

DM-I(A) dated March 26, 2020 notified by the

Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”), Government of

India, (4) Annexure to Ministry of Home Affairs

Order No. 40-3/2020-D dated 24.03.2020 (“MHA

Order 2”), (5) Consolidated Guidelines on the

measures to be taken by Ministries/ Departments of

Government of India, State/Union Territory

Governments and State/ Union Territory Authorities

for containment of COVID-19 Epidemic in the

Country, as notified by Ministry of Home Affairs on

24.03.2020 and further modified on 25.03.2020 and

27.03.2020 (“MHA Guidelines”).


the TVC and the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n09j7hcU-IA)

and considered the advertiser’s response.

The CCC was of the view that there is nothing in the

advertisement that suggests anything defamatory if a

person who eats home cooked food decides to opt for

home delivery of food. In the context of the

advertisement, the CCC concluded that the

advertisement does not degrade homely cooking at

home. The advertisement was not in contravention of

Chapter IV of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

NOT UPHELD.

The CCC reviewed the data submitted of WHO Press

Conference report, various orders and guidelines

issued by Ministries/ Departments of Government of

India, Standard Operating Procedure, in support of

their claim of `online food delivery being safe’. The

CCC also noted that the TVC carries a disclaimer to

mention, “WHO says food delivery is safe”.

The CCC felt that the advertiser is not responsible for

cooking of the food nor are they responsible for the

consumers eating the food. The advertiser is only

responsible for the delivery and the only claim they

are making is `online food delivery is safe’ which

they have backed up by WHO data and Government

notifications. The CCC was also of the view that any

food product that is ordered or used, one needs to

wash their hands before eating or using. This is

beyond the advertiser’s purview whether one washes

his/her hands or not as that is an individual safety

precaution that the consumers need to take, for which

the advertiser cannot be held responsible.


supporting data provided, by majority the CCC

concluded that the claim, “…… Food Delivery Toh

Safe Hai”, was not objectionable. The advertisement

was not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n09j7hcU-IA


Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

However, the CCC recommended that the advertiser

should include an added precaution in favour of the

public, by a disclaimer to mention that the `hands

need to be washed before eating and handling the

packaging material’.

113. OC 2011-C.2135 Havells India Limited

(Havells Alkaline Water Purifier)

MEDIUM: Instagram advertisement

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CE8UxZhB8PL/?igsh

id=5f0x9obxysqo)

Facebook advertisement, Website advertisement

(https://www.havells.com/en/consumer/water-

purifier.html)


Claims objected to:

1. Immuno shield technology

2. Alkaline water helps build a strong immune system

and keep diseases at bay

Complaint:

“Havells Alkaline water purifiers provide you water

that helps in building a strong immune system.

Havells claims that their water purifier with Alkaline

helps build a strong immune system. How is this

possible and in a way it's misleading, especially

during the covid times. The claims seem false and

plays with consumer fears.

ASCI observes in the current Covid-19 pandemic

situation, the visual resembling Coronavirus would

make the viewers believe that the Havells Alkaline

Water Purifier acts as Immuno shield against

Coronavirus.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser stated that “As per a study published in

the Journal of the International Society of Sports

Nutrition, a significant difference in the whole blood

viscosity of participants was observed after

consuming alkaline water as opposed to regular

water after a strenuous workout. According to a

study published in Evidence Based Complementary

and Alternative Medicine, alkaline water provides

higher longevity in terms of “deceleration aging

factor” as it increases the survival functions. A study

published in the Alternative Therapies in Health and

Medicine showed that consumption of alkaline water

may prevent osteoporosis and protect pancreatic beta

cells with its antioxidant effects. Yet another study

published in Public Library of Science (PLOS) said

that drinking alkalized water enhances hydration,

improves acid base balance and anaerobic exercise

performance. It is clear from the above that Alkaline

water strengthens our defence system, enhances our

immunity and the capacity of our body to fight

diseases. It is denied that the visual resembles that of

the corona virus. More over any depiction of a round

shape is not necessarily a reference to corona virus.

Several Viruses including Influenza, Rotavirus are

similar spherical in shape.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided - (1)

Copy of advertisements of other water purifiers

making similar claims related to pure water and

immunity, and (2) Website links for literature

references on benefits of Alkaline water.


the Instagram

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CE8UxZhB8PL/?igsh

id=5f0x9obxysqo), Facebook and Website

advertisement

(https://www.havells.com/en/consumer/water-

purifier.html) and considered the advertiser’s

response.

The CCC noted that while the advertiser has made

assertions about their claims, there were no technical

data or test reports provided for the product

performance claims made.

The CCC observed that the literature references by

way of website links were provided. However, there

was no immune related test data for water produced

by the appliance - Havells Alkaline Water Purifiers.

There was also no evidence submitted that Alkaline

water processed by the purifier helps build a strong

immune system in humans. The product’s feature of

`Immuno shield technology’ was not explained. The

advertisements of other advertiser’s product given

does not give justification for their own claim.

Hence the claims are based only on the literature

references.


concluded that the claims, "Immuno shield

technology” and “Alkaline water helps build a strong

immune system and keep diseases at bay”, were not

substantiated. The claims are misleading by

exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of consumers.

In the current Covid-19 pandemic situation, the

images shown resembling Coronavirus would

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE8UxZhB8PL/?igshid=5f0x9obxysqo




https://www.havells.com/en/consumer/water-purifier.html

https://www.havells.com/en/consumer/water-purifier.html


mislead the viewers to believe that Havells Alkaline

Water Purifier acts as Immuno shield against

Coronavirus.

The Instagram, Facebook, and the Website

advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5


114. @ Suo Motu 2011-C.2208 Welspun

Global Brands Ltd (Spaces Bed Linen)

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iFKZ0Tfs0)


Claims objected to:

1. Anti Corona Bed Linen from SPACES

2. Spaces Bed linen with Health Guard finish fights

against Coronavirus


The ASCI approached the advertiser for its response

in addressing the objections raised in the complaint.

The advertiser was offered an option to seek Informal


withdrawing the claims objected to in the

advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the



telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not

avail nor did they submit their written response. The

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) noted that no

response was received from the advertiser prior to the


The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iFKZ0Tfs0)

and noted that the Advertiser was in the business of

Home textile products such as bedsheets, quilts

cushion covers etc. The CCC observed that the

Advertiser in its ad had claimed that the bed linens

from SPACES were capable of killing 99.99% the

COVID-19 virus which comes into contact with the

fabric and the same was also tested by the

independent NABL accredited laboratory in

accordance with the modified ISO test method. The

CCC also observed that the Bed linens did not

prevent corona virus but claimed to kill the same, if

came into contact with the fabric.

The disclaimer provided by the Advertiser in the

advertisement was duly noted by the CCC. However

the test methodology was not available in order to

prove the claims as true. The Advertiser did not

provide data to substantiate that the bed linens were

Anti Corona or Health Guard finish assembled in the

lines were capable of killing the Coronavirus.



concluded that the claims, “Anti Corona Bed Linen

from SPACES” and “Spaces Bed linen with Health

Guard finish fights against Coronavirus”, were not

substantiated. The claims are misleading by

exaggeration and are likely to lead to grave or


consumers. The YouTube advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


NAMS Complaints:

115. @ 2009-C.1276 NSHM Knowledge

Campus

MEDIUM: EP Prabhat Khabar, Patna Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

"Award for Best Education Group in East by

ASSOCHAM"









Advertiser stated that “NSHM Knowledge Campus

received the award for the best education group in

the east from ASSOCHAM India on 20th July'2019.

The award was given based on the data provided by

the institution.”


of the award certificate.



survey methodology with the outcome of the survey.

Advertiser did not submit this information in time for

the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) meeting.



observed that the advertiser has made the said claim

on the basis of the award granted to their institute by

ASSOCHAM. However, the photograph of the

award certificate is by itself not sufficient evidence to

support the claim. Additionally, details on the

protocol/process followed by the awarding/ranking

organization is required to substantiate the claim.

The CCC noted that despite ASCI’s request, the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iFKZ0Tfs0


advertiser did not provide the basis for the award or









advertisement.


the claim, "Award for Best Education Group in East

by ASSOCHAM" was inadequately substantiated and

is misleading by exaggeration. The print



Programs, Clauses 8 i ii(ia) ii(a b c) of the ASCI

Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in

Advertisements as well as Chapters I.1, I.2 and I.4 of


116. @ 2011-C.1715 Motion Academy

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Agra Edition, Main

Issue,(Hindi), (17.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Your trust made us the Best in Agra”















observed that the advertiser’s institute is providing

coaching for Medical, NEET and JEE exams. Upon



concluded that the claim, “Your trust made us the

Best in Agra”, was not substantiated with market

survey data, or with verifiable comparative data of

the advertiser’s academy and other similar academies

in Agra, to prove that they are better than all the rest

in providing coaching to their students for the exams

as claimed, or through an independent third-party

validation.




advertisement contravened the ASCI Guidelines for


as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


117. @ 2011-C.1733 Supreme Solar Projects

Private Limited – Supreme Solar

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Aurangabad Edition,

Supplement Hello Aurangabad (Marathi)

(24.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s No.1”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







responded that they are “attaching the survey report

which is conducted by BRG group London.”


of the BRG report on Heating Products.


claim support data was referred to an independent

technical expert of ASCI. The expert opinion was




opinion.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR neither did they

submit any additional data in response to the expert

opinion.




Technical expert presented at the meeting. The CCC

observed that the summary slide presented from the

report lists 5 Top Suppliers. There is a mention that

the 2019 full report provides analysis of sales

volumes and values. The data presented by the

advertiser does not indicate the sales volumes or

values of the various brands of Solar water heaters. In

addition, the source of the data should also be

indicated, whether this data is based on published

data on production or sales, industry expert estimates

or other methods. There is also need to clarify


whether the data pertains to manufacture of solar

water heaters (which might include manufacture of

white-label products for use by other brands) or

relates to Supreme Solar branded water heaters.


the claim, "India’s No.1” was inadequately


exaggeration. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement. The print



118. @ 2011-C.1763 CLATapult Education

LLP- Clatapult Coaching

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://questionpaperz.in)

(English) (18.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“CLAT Coaching by NUJS Grads- Ranks 1 from

WB: 2016-2019”















(http://questionpaperz.in) and observed that the

Advertiser’s institute is providing CLAT coaching

and also claims to be ranked 1st from West Bengal:

2016-2019.



CCC concluded that the claim, “CLAT Coaching by

NUJS Grads- Ranks 1 from WB: 2016-2019” was not

substantiated with copy of the award certificate,

details of the process for award selection, criteria for

granting the award, survey methodology, parameters


CLAT coaching institutes/ colleges that were part of

the survey, the outcome of the survey, and details

about the awarding body. The source of the claim

was not mentioned in the advertisement.



consumers, especially students. The Digital display



as well as Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

119. @ 2011-C.1767 EduPristine

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://siasat.com)

(English) (03.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Assured Placement Assistance”


The ASCI had approached the advertiser for their






claim with the required supporting data. . The








(http://siasat.com) and observed that the advertiser’s

institute is promoting career in finance and offering

CFA training with assured placement assistance.



concluded that the claim, “Assured Placement

Assistance” was not substantiated with authentic





their institute in relevant industry sectors on











http://questionpaperz.in/

http://siasat.com/


students as well as general public at large. The digital



Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

120. 2011-C.1781 Abroad Education

Consultancy (AEC)

MEDIUM: Saurashtra Samachar(*), Bhavnagar

Edition, Main Issue,(English), (27.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Visa Guarantee”















The CCC viewed Print advertisement (in Gujarathi)

and observed that the advertiser is into business of

consultants for studies in abroad by claiming to

provide guaranteed Visa.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Visa

Guarantee” was not substantiated with detailed list of

students/candidates who received visa for pursuing

MBBS in Europe, evidence to support their

enrolment including their Contact details for

independent verification, nor the claim was backed

by an independent third party validation. The claim

is misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to


consumers. The Print advertisement contravened


Institutions and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1,

1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

121. @ 2011-C.1782 Foodtech Consults(P)Ltd-

Global Institute of Vocational Education and Skill

Development

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Agra Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi), (30.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Join our Industry Ready Courses with 100% Job

Assurance”
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is offering one/

two-year diploma courses, and is assuring placement

to their students.



concluded that the claim, “Join our Industry Ready

Courses with 100% Job Assurance” was not





students who were placed through their institute in

relevant industry sectors on completion of their














Programs, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in



advertisements, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5


122. @ 2011-C.1792 Excel Academy

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://symbaloo.com)

(English) (24.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Learn French from No.1 Institute”















(http://symbaloo.com) which stated that the

Advertiser were the No. 1 Institute for learning

French.



CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “Learn

French from No.1 Institute” was not substantiated

with verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

institute and other similar institutes imparting French

lessons, to prove that they are in leadership position

(No.1) in teaching French. The claim was also not

backed by a third-party validation. The source for the




students. The Digital display advertisement



Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


123. @ 2011-C.1839 E.S. Group of

Institutions-E. S Polytechnic College

MEDIUM: Dinamalar, Pondicherry Edition, Main

Issue, (Tamil), (27.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Guaranteed Job Opportunity”
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is offering

various under graduate courses, post graduate

courses, and research programs as well as diploma

courses and is assuring guaranteed job opportunity to

their students.



concluded that the claim, “100% Guaranteed Job

Opportunity” was not substantiated with authentic























124. @ 2011-C.1848 YUVA Healthcare

Institute of Advanced Skills


(http://drikpanchang.com), National Edition (English)

(13.08.2020)

http://symbaloo.com/



Claim objected to:

“The most advanced medical simulation lab in the

country”















(http://drikpanchang.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing B.Sc. Paramedical

Courses. Upon careful consideration of the complaint


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “The

most advanced medical simulation lab in the

country”, was not substantiated with market survey

data, or with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s medical simulation Lab and other similar

institute’s medical lab in the country, to prove that

their medical simulation lab is most advanced than all

the rest, nor the claim was backed by an independent

third-party validation.






as well as the Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


125. @ 2011-C.1871 Grade Stack Learning

Pvt. Ltd-(Gradeup)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://recruitment.guru)

(English) (22.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“#1 Practice Test for SLAT”
















Advertiser is providing unlimited access to online

mock test for SLAT, AILET, MH CET, BA LLB and

other Law Entrance Exams.



CCC concluded that the claim, “#1 Practice Test for

SLAT” was not substantiated with a verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and

other similar institutes providing such test series to

the students, to prove that they are in leadership for

providing SLAT practice test. The claim was also

not backed by a third-party validation. The source for

the claim was not indicated in the advertisement.






Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


126. @ 2011-C.1891 Siva Sivani Institute of

Management (SSIM)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Hyderabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Ranked #1 Private B-School in Hyderabad by CSR-

GHRDC”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they availed and submitted

their written response.

Advertiser stated that “they forward an email shared

across to them by CSR-GHRDC. They've furnished

the parameters and process of scrutiny which

becomes basis of this ranking system.”

http://drikpanchang.com/









opinion.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR neither did they

submit any additional data in response to the expert

opinion.





observed that the advertiser has stated that this

ranking is based on the information provided by

Global Human Resource Development Centre

(GHRDC) to Competition Success Review. In their

response, the advertiser has mentioned that this

ranking is based on voluntary participation of

business schools and that for the study under

reference 134 colleges provided information about

their institutions. The key parameters for evaluation

were indicated and almost 45% of the participating

institutions were visited by evaluators to validate the

data provided.

The parameters used for evaluation appear to be

detailed and close to half the participating institutions

have been personally visited to validate the data

provided. However, the results of the ranking

exercise across region

(http://ghrdc.org/website/b_schooldirect.html)

indicates many surprising results. In Gujarat, among

both public and private b-schools, Institute of

Management at Nirma University is ranked No.1; in

West Bengal it is Eastern Institute of Integrated

Learning in Management, Kolkata which is ranked

No. 1; and in Karnataka it is the International School

of Management Excellence which is ranked No.1.

Considering that many top business schools across

the country do not figure in the GHRDC ranking calls

into question the comprehensiveness in coverage of

this exercise and therefore its very credibility.


the claim, “Ranked #1 Private B-School in

Hyderabad by CSR-GHRDC” was inadequately

substantiated with supporting ranking data. The


advertisement.



students. The advertisement contravened the ASCI


and Programs, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisement, as well as



127. @ 2011-C.1912 Paras Hospital (Dr.

Pradeep Aggarwal & Dr. Anand Jindal)

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement My City(English) (26.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Dedicated Team of Best Orthopedic Surgeons at

Paras Hospital, Panchkula”















observed that the advertiser’s Hospital is providing

various Orthopaedics services including joint

replacement surgeries, spine surgery etc. The CCC

observed that no market survey data, or verifiable

comparative data/ study of the advertiser’s

Orthopaedic Surgeons team versus Orthopaedic

Surgeons teams of other similar hospitals was

provided, to prove that the team engaged by the

Advertiser is better than all the rest as claimed. The

claim was also not validated by an independent third-

party.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Dedicated Team of

Best Orthopaedic Surgeons at Paras Hospital,

Panchkula”, was not substantiated. The claim is


widespread disappointment in the minds of public.

The print advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1,


UPHELD.

128. @ 2011-C.1932 NIPS Group India-NIPS

Hotel Management

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://forbes.com),

(English) (23.08.2020)

http://ghrdc.org/website/b_schooldirect.html



Claims objected to:

1. Ranked No.1 in Eastern India

2. Best International Placements Award

Objection:

Additionally, the claim “Ranked No.1 in Eastern

India” was challenged under complaint reference no.

1905-C.616 and is in continued violation








For the claim of “Ranked No. 1 in Eastern India”, the

advertiser provided their earlier communication of

June 2019 with ASCI.

For the claim of “Best International Placement

Award”, the advertiser stated that “they are recipient

of the said award this year and it was awarded by

AsiaOne Magazine. ASCI may contact them for

survey detail and any such information that ASCI

may require.” As claim support data, the advertiser

provided a copy of the award certificate.

The onus to provide supporting data for the claims

made in the advertisement is on the advertiser as they

ought to have such data available with them prior to

making the claims. Hence the ASCI Secretariat



for the award related claim.

ASCI Secretariat further clarified to the Advertiser

that the claim of “Ranked No. 1 in Eastern India”,

objected to in the present complaint (2011-C.1932) is

in continued violation of ASCI’s earlier complaint

(1905-C.616) which was closed under IR mechanism

as the advertiser had then assured to use the source of

the ranking as a Disclaimer for this claim.

Advertiser did not submit the required information in

time for the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

meeting.



observed that the advertiser did not provide any

support data with a copy of the award certificate for

the claim of “Ranked No. 1 in Eastern India”.

The CCC further noted that the advertiser was

granted a Black Swan award for `Best International

Placements 2019-20’ by Asia One Magazine.

However, the photograph of the award certificate is

by itself not sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Additionally, details on the protocol/process followed

by the awarding/ranking organization is required to

substantiate the claim, which was not provided by the

advertiser despite ASCI’s request.


concluded that the claims, “Ranked No.1 in Eastern

India” and “Best International Placements Award”,

were not substantiated with supporting ranking data

such as details of the process for awards selection,



other similar institutes that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey, and the details of the

awarding bodies. The source for the claims was not

indicated in the advertisement. The claims are

misleading by exaggeration. The print advertisement


Educational Institutions and Programs, Clauses 8 i

ii(ia) ii(a b c) of the ASCI Guidelines for Usage of




129. @ 2011-C.1939 Galaxy Life Sciences

(Vellasafe Skin Cream)

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Udaipur Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. Remove Deep Marks and Increases Natural Beauty

2. See the Difference in just 7 Days














The CCC viewed the Print advertisement and noted

that the Advertiser is promoting a skin cream and is

claiming that the product removes deep marks,

burned marks, wounds and increases natural Beauty

in seven days. The CCC observed that the advertiser

did not provide product specific information such as

copy of product approval license, copy of product


label, and product composition details, and evidence

of ingredients present in the product.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims

“Remove Deep Marks and Increases Natural Beauty”

and “See the Difference in just 7 Days”, were not

substantiated with product efficacy data. The claims

are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead

to grave disappointment in the minds of consumers.



UPHELD.

130. @ 2011-C.1946 Ducat India

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://thoughtco.com)

(English) (19.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Ducat provide Best Java Training by industry

expert with 100% placement assistance

2. Best Java Training Institute
















(http://thoughtco.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is claiming that it is a best java

training institute and it provides placement assistance

to their students.





getting jobs in relevant industry sectors, the use of

100% numerical is not relevant for “Ducat provide

Best Java Training by industry expert with Placement






students.

The CCC also concluded that the claim, “ Best Java

Training Institute” was not substantiated with any

market survey data or with verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s training institute versus other

institutes to prove that they are better than the rest in

providing java training courses, nor the claim was

backed by a third party validation. The claim is







131. @ 2011-C.1947 Skill-Lync


(http://theconstructor.org) (English) (20.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Join India's No.1 Engg. Platform”














The CCC viewed the Digital display advertisement

(http://theconstructor.org) and observed that

Advertiser is providing a platform for engineers with

surety of working on projects and interacting with the

experts. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,


advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Join

India's No.1 Engg. Platform” was not substantiated


engineering platform and engineering platforms of

other institutes in India, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1). The leadership claim was

not supported by any third-party validation. The

source for the claim was also not indicated in the

advertisement.



http://thoughtco.com/

http://theconstructor.org/







132. @ 2011-C.1948 Skill-Lync


(http://freshersworld.com) (English) (17.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Mechanical Engg. Platform”















(http://freshersworld.com) and observed that

Advertiser is providing a platform for mechanical

engineers with surety of working on hands on

projects and imparting of top-rated courses in the

field from the experts. Upon careful consideration of



claim, “No.1 Mechanical Engg. Platform” was not


advertiser’s Engineering platform and Engineering

Platforms of similar institutes, to prove that they are

in leadership position (No.1) for providing

mechanical engineering courses, or through an

independent third-party validation. The source for the









133. @ 2011-C.1950 Pace Pioneer Academy


(http://4essay.blogspot.in) (English) (14.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Best Coaching, test integrated, study plan for every

student, exam oriented coaching

2. Clear UPSC in First Attempt
















(http://4essay.blogspot.in). and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is claiming that it is providing

best coaching, test integrated study plan for every

student and is also assuring that the students will

clear their exams in first attempt.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Coaching, test

integrated, study plan for every student, exam

oriented coaching” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s academy versus other

academies to prove that they are better than the rest

in providing test integrated study plan to their

students, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation. The claim “Clear UPSC in First Attempt”

was not substantiated with detailed list of their

students who cleared UPSC exams in first attempt,

with Contact details for independent verification by

ASCI, not the claim was backed by an independent




minds of students. The digital display advertisement





134. @ 2011-C.1960 Mukesh Patodia Hospital

(Dr. Shyam Sundar Patodia)

http://freshersworld.com/

http://4essay.blogspot.in/


MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Alwar Edition,

Supplement AlwarBhaskar(Hindi) (15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Successful Treatment of Migraine, Lump in Uterus,

Ovarian Cyst, Thyroid, Lack of Height without

Medicine and Injection through Herbal Electropathy

Medicines”
















that the advertiser does electropathy testing process

and provides treatment for migraine, Lump in Uterus,

Ovarian Cyst, Thyroid, Lack of Height, etc through

herbal electropathy medicines, without any medicine

and injection. The CCC observed that the advertiser

did not provide any details of the treatment

procedure, nor any details regarding the medicines

used for treatment of the claimed diseases, and their

approval status by the regulatory authorities.




“Successful Treatment of Migraine, Lump in Uterus,

Ovarian Cyst, Thyroid, Lack of Height without

Medicine and Injection through Herbal Electropathy

Medicines” was not substantiated with any

supporting clinical evidence of their patients who

were successfully treated for the diseases claimed and

with treatment efficacy data. The claims are



consumers particularly patients suffering from

migraine, thyroid, uterus lump, height and ovary

problems. The Print advertisement contravened



135. @ 2011-C.1961 Rexler Health Care Pvt.

Ltd (Rexler Hair Oil)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Muzaffarpur

Edition, Main Issue (Hindi) (30.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Freedom from Hair Breakage and Hair fall in Just

One Week”















The CCC viewed the Print advertisement and

observed that the advertiser is promoting its hair oil

by claiming to provide guaranteed results in just one

week. However, the advertiser did not provide







“Freedom from Hair Breakage and Hair fall in Just

One Week”, was not substantiated with clinical

evidence of product efficacy. The claim is misleading

by exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave

disappointment in the minds of consumers. The Print



136. @ 2011-C.1963 Skill-Lync


(http://apnaahangout.com) (English) (20.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best Mechanical Design Course”

















(http://apnaahangout.com) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for mechanical

design course.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Mechanical

Design Course” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s coaching class versus other

similar coaching classes or institutes, to prove that

their Mechanical Design Course is better than the

rest, nor the claim was backed by a third-party

validation.








137. @ 2011-C.1965 Vajirao and Reddy

Institute Pvt. Ltd


(http://freehomedelivery.net) (English) (09.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“IAS Achievers 1st Choice, Best Civil Services Exam

Coaching Institute in Delhi”
















(http://freehomedelivery.net) and observed that the

advertiser is providing coaching for civil services

examinations and is also claiming to be the first

choice of all the students who have passed the IAS

examinations.



CCC concluded that the claim, “IAS Achievers 1st

Choice, Best Civil Services Exam Coaching Institute

in Delhi” was not substantiated with any market

survey data or with verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s institute versus other institutes in Delhi

providing coaching for civil services exams, to prove

that they are better than the rest in training students

for Civil Services Exam. The claim was also not









138. @ 2011-C.1966 The Gate Academy Pvt.

Ltd

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://radio-

electronics.com ) (English) (29.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. #1 Online Coaching for GATE IN

2. Best Live Online Classes
















(http://radio-electronics.com). The CCC observed

that the advertiser is providing online coaching for

GATE IN and is also claiming to be the No. 1 online

coaching institute for GATE IN.

http://apnaahangout.com/

http://freehomedelivery.net/

http://radio-electronics.com/




CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “#1 Online

Coaching for GATE IN” was not substantiated with

any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s

institute versus other online coaching institutes, to

prove that they are in leadership position (No.1), nor

the claim was backed by a third party validation. The


advertisement.








139. @ 2011-C.1967 Saroj Education Group

(SEG)


(http://tamil.filmibeat.com) (English) (28.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placements since 25 years

2. Most Awarded Institute of the Year
















(http://tamil.filmibeat.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is offering courses such as BBA,

BCA, BTECH, MBA, MCA, MPHARMA, MTECH

etc. and is assuring placement to their students. The

CCC also viewed that the advertiser has claimed that

the institute is most awarded institute of the year.



concluded that the claim, “100% Placements since 25

years” was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data on year on year basis for the last 25

years as claimed, such as batch size of students per













The claim, “Most Awarded Institute of the Year”,

was not substantiated with copy of the award

certificate, details of the process for award selection,


parameters considered, questionnaires used, the

outcome of the survey, and details about the

awarding body. The source of the claim was not

mentioned in the advertisement.






Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of





140. @ 2011-C.1968 Shoolini University


(http://collegedekho.com ) (English) (27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Employability”


















(http://collegedekho.com ) and observed that the

advertiser’s university is assuring 100%

Employability to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim “100% Employability”





students who were employed through their university

in relevant industry sectors on completion of their


were not employed and the reason for their non-

employment, nor any independent audit or











as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code,

and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in



141. @ 2011-C.1969 ICCS College of

Engineering & Management

MEDIUM: EP Mathrubhumi(*), Kochi Edition,

Main Issue,(English), (29.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Job Assured PC”
















observed that the advertiser’s college is offering

coaching for various B.tech programmes, Diploma

programmes and is assuring jobs to their students.



concluded that the claim, “Job Assured PC” was not





















Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made in



142. @ 2011-C.1970 Bhaavya Technical

Institute

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Agra Edition,

Supplement MY City, (English), (13.10.2020)


Claim objected to:










opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat,

which they did not avail nor did they submit their

written response. The Consumer Complaints Council

(CCC) noted that no response was received from the

advertiser prior to the prescribed due date for this

complaint.





online coaching and is providing placement

assistance to their students.



concluded that while the advertiser may be providing

placement assistance to their students for getting jobs

in relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical is

not relevant for “100% Placement Assistance” claim.








and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the


143. @ 2011-C.1973 Swastik Vaastu

(Agarbatti Dhoop Stick)

MEDIUM: Sandesh, Vadodara Edition, Main Issue

(Gujarati) (06.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Eliminates Virus

2. Eliminates Mobile, TV, Computer's Radiation
















observed that the advertiser is promoting products

like Agarbattii and Dhoop and has claimed that these

products would result into elimination of negativity,

eliminating virus, eliminating mobile, TV, Computer

radiation etc. However, the advertiser did not provide



details, scientific rationale, nor any technical test data

for the product claims.




“Eliminates Virus” and “Eliminates Mobile, TV and

Computer’s Radiation”, were not substantiated with

clinical evidence of product efficacy. The claims are


grave disappointment in the minds of consumers.

The Print advertisement contravened Chapters I.1,

I.4, and I.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

144. @ 2011-C.1974 TCL Electronics India

(TCL Durable Range)

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Panaji Edition, Main Issue

(English) (10.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“40% Energy Saving”















that the Advertiser is promoting an air conditioner

product with features such as titan gold evaporator

and condenser, eco-friendly refrigerant, high ambient

cooling and 40 % savings of energy.


brochure, user manual of the product, and

comparative technical test reports for the product

benefit claimed. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint, and in the absence of any comments or


the claim, “40% Energy Saving”, was not

substantiated with technical data. The claim is





UPHELD.


145. @ 2011-C.1984 Dr. MPS Group of

Institutions

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran(*), Agra Edition, Main

Issue,(English), (30.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Opportunity in top MNC’s”














complaint.



coaching for BBA, BCA, B.com, B,SC, M.Sc.

Biotech and is assuring placement to their students.




providing placement opportunity to their students for

getting jobs in top MNC’s, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “100% Placement

Opportunity in top MNC’s” claim. There cannot be a





the minds of consumers including students. The print



as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.


146. @ 2011-C.1985 M/s iScholar Education

Services Pvt Ltd-I30 Learning Centre

MEDIUM: Sambad,Cuttack Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. India's best coaching platform now at Cuttack

2. Guidance by Odisha’s Best Faculties
















observed that the advertiser is providing a coaching

platform at Cuttack for IIT-JEE/ NEET. Upon careful



that the claim, “India's best coaching platform now at

Cuttack” was not substantiated with any market



Cuttack, to prove that their coaching platform is

better than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a


Claim, “Guidance by Odisha’s Best Faculties” were



institute versus other similar institutes in Odisha, to

prove that the advertiser’s coaching faculties are

better than the rest. The claim was not backed by a









147. @ 2011-C.1986 IEC (Immigration and

Education Consultant)

MEDIUM: Dainik Jagran(*),Panipat Edition,

Supplement Jagran City,( Hindi), (04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best Consultancy in Haryana”

















observed that the advertiser is providing immigration

and education consultancy services in Haryana.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Consultancy in

Haryana” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s consultancy versus other consultants

providing similar services in Haryana, to prove that

the advertisers are the better consultants on

immigration and educations matters than the others.

The claim was not backed by third party validation.





and Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


148. @ 2011-C.1987 Amrish Sir’s Institute


Edition, Main Issue,( English), (25.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Highest Selection in Govt. Job for Last 10 year at

Minimum Fees

2. Best technology across Gujarat with one to one

student interaction & doubt solving

















Bank (P.O./ Clerk), LIC, SSC (Staff Selection

Committee), Railway Recruitments and many other

Government job exams including CMAT-MBA,

MCA entrance test.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Highest Selection in

Govt. Job for Last 10 year at Minimum Fees” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data on

year on year basis for the last 10 years as claimed, of

the advertiser’s institute versus other similar

institutes to prove that their institute has given higher

selections in Govt. Job than all the rest, nor the claim

was backed by an independent third party validation.

Claim “Best technology across Gujarat with one to

one student interaction & doubt solving” was not



coaching institute versus other institutes in Gujarat,

to prove that their institute uses better technology

than all the rest for one to one student interaction &

doubt solving. The claim was not backed by a third

party validation.








149. @ 2011-C.1988 IITian's Prashikshan

Kendra Pvt. Ltd.

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Pune Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Highest Success Ratio in Pune”


















JEE advanced exams.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Highest Success

Ratio in Pune” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s institute versus

other institutes in Pune to prove that their institute

has a higher success ratio in JEE Advanced 2020

results than all the rest, nor the claim was not backed

by a third party validation. The claim is misleading

by exaggeration and is likely to lead to widespread

disappointment in the minds of students. The print





150. @ 2011-C.1989 JRS Tutorials

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran(*),Varanasi Edition,

Main Issue,( English), (31.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“JRS Tutorials-The Best You Can Get”
















observed that the advertiser is providing online

coaching for JEE- Advanced (IIT-JEE) 2020.

The CCC, upon careful consideration of the


the advertiser, concluded that the claim, “JRS

Tutorials-The Best You Can Get” was not



tutorials versus other similar tutorials providing

coaching for JEE, to prove that they are better than

the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation.







151. @ 2011-C.1990 JSS Academy of Higher

Education and Research

MEDIUM: EP Hindu(*),Bangalore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:















complaint.



coaching for various courses such as B.Sc, HSMS,

M.Sc, yoga, dental diploma etc. The Advertiser also

mentioned data with respect to the number of

students, faculty/ staff, researchers associated,

publications made and is assuring placement to their

students.












consumers including students.






152. @ 2011-C.1991 Khan Study Group (KSG)

MEDIUM: EP Hindu(*),Madurai Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“GS Highest Marks in India”















The CCC viewed the print advertisement. The CCC


coaching for IAS exams. Upon careful consideration



claim, “GS Highest Marks in India” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data in

terms of marks obtained by the students passed

through the advertiser’s coaching classes and other

classes providing coaching for IAS exams in India, to

validate that marks scored by their students in general

studies are highest marks in India. The claim was not








153. @ 2011-C.1992 LNCT University

MEDIUM: DainikBhaskar(*), Bhopal Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Best Campus Placement”

















D. Pharma, B. Pharma and M. Pharma courses.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Campus

Placement” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s institute versus other similar institutes, to

prove that the advertiser’s campus placement is better

than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third

party validation.







154. @ 2011-C.1995 Impexperts: World of

Import Export

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://idlebrain.com),

(English) (27.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Organization”















The CCC viewed Digital display advertisement

(http://idlebrain.com), and noted that the Advertiser

is promoting business of Import export.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Organization”


data of the advertiser’s Import export organization

with other similar organizations, to prove that they

are in leadership position (No.1). The Claim was also

not substantiated through an independent third party





Public. The Digital display advertisement



155. @ 2011-C.2017 Beehive Educational

Society-Beehive College of Engineering &

Technology

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*),Nainital Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Join India’s Top Ranked Engineering College”















observed that the Advertiser’s college is providing

courses such as B.Tech, MBA, BAMS and other

courses. They have also claimed to be top ranked

engineering college in India.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Join India’s Top

Ranked Engineering College” was not substantiated

with copy of the award/ ranking certificate, details of

the process for selection for ranking, criteria for

granting the ranks, survey methodology, parameters


engineering institutes/ colleges in India that were part

of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and details

about the ranking body. The source of the claim was

not mentioned in the advertisement.



consumers, especially students. The print






was UPHELD.

156. @ 2011-C.2018 Deeksha Creations

Society-RNT Group of Colleges




Claims objected to:

1. Best Infrastructure

2. Best Labs

3. Best Faculty
















observed that the advertiser’s college is providing

coaching for various courses including BCA, B.Sc,

M.Sc, M.A, B.A.-LL.B, LL.B, LL.M etc. The

advertisement also stated certain special features

provided by the college such as NCC, NSS, Rover

Scouting and sports, facility for online and smart

classes, certificate courses from IIT Bombay, various

scholarships etc.




CCC concluded that the claims, “Best Infrastructure”,

“Best Labs” and “Best Faculty” were not



college’s infrastructure, labs and faculty versus other

institute’s infrastructure, labs and faculty, providing

coaching for the courses as claimed, to prove that

they are better than the rest. The claims were also not









157. @ 2011-C.2047 Gitam University


(http://keralalotteryresult.net)(English) (20.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The First to conduct entrance tests and admissions

online”















(http://keralalotteryresult.net) and noted that the

Advertiser’s university is providing coaching for test

series. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,



First to conduct entrance tests and admissions online”


data of the advertiser’s university versus other similar

universities, to prove that they are the first to conduct

entrance tests and admissions online, nor the claim

was backed by a third party validation. The claim is



consumers. The Digital display advertisement



158. @ 2011-C.2099 The George Telegraph

Group-George Animatrix School of Animation

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://fotor.com)

(English) (20.08.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://fotor.com) and observed that the advertiser’s

school is offering graphic design course and is

assuring placement assistance to their students. Upon












consumers including students.





159. @ 2011-C.2104 Game Institute

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://makeuseof.com)

(English) (22.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

http://keralalotteryresult.net/

http://fotor.com/

http://fotor.com/


1. No.1 Gaming, Animation & VFX

2. Join Best Game Development School















(http://makeuseof.com) and noted that the Advertiser

is in the business of Game development coaching.

The CCC observed that the advertiser has claimed to

be No.1 in gaming, animation and VFX and also

provides coaching for game art, designing etc.



concluded that the claim, “No.1 Gaming, Animation

& VFX” was not substantiated with verifiable


other similar type of schools or institutes, to prove

that they are in leadership position (No.1) than all the

rest for Gaming, Animation and VFX. The claim was

not validated through an independent third party. The


advertisement.

Claim, "Join Best Game Development School” was

not substantiated with market survey data or with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s school

versus other similar schools, to prove that their

school is better than all the rest for Game

Development, nor through an independent third party

validation.



minds of students. The Digital display advertisement





160. @ 2011-C.2107 Gurusiksha

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://freejobalert.com)

(English) (16.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Gurusiksha top toutor platform”















(http://freejobalert.com) and noted that the Advertiser

is promoting their coaching classes claiming to be

`No.1 Gurusiksha top toutor platform’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Gurusiksha top

toutor platform” was not substantiated with

comparative data of the advertiser’s coaching classes

and other similar coaching classes, to prove that they

are in leadership position (No.1) for their toutors. The

claim was not validated through an independent third

party. The source for the claim was also not indicated









161. @ 2011-C.2124 International Institute of

Management, Media & IT (IIMMI)


(http://anmolvachan.co.in) (English) (22.08.2020)


Claim objected to:










http://makeuseof.com/


http://anmolvachan.co.in/









(http://anmolvachan.co.in) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is offering coaching for BJMC/

MJMC regular degree courses, and is assuring

placement to their students. Upon careful



the claim, “100% Placement” was not substantiated





placed through their college in relevant industry

sectors on completion of their courses, their








placed class.










162. @ 2011-C.2125 Inmakes Software

Solutions-Inmakes Learning Hub

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://w3schools.com)

(English) (19.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Free Software Training”















(http://w3schools.com) and noted that the Advertiser

is promoting free Software online training with

international certification.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Free Software

Training” was not substantiated with verifiable


other software training institutes, to prove that they

are in leadership position (No.1) for providing free

software training. The leadership claim was not

validated through an independent third party. The


advertisement.








163. @ 2011-C.2126 Inmakes Software

Solutions-Inmakes Learning Hub


(http://computerhope.com) (English) (19.08.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://computerhope.com) and observed that the

http://anmolvachan.co.in/

http://w3schools.com/

http://w3schools.com/

http://computerhope.com/


advertiser’s institute is offering coaching for under

graduate and post graduate courses, and is assuring















Programs as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


164. @ 2011-C.2127 I.P.S.R. Group of

Institutions


(http://livehindustan.com)(English) (18.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“1st Ranked Institute for Pharmacy”















(http://livehindustan.com) and observed that the

Advertiser’s institute is providing courses such as

B.Pharma, D.Pharma, M.Pharma etc and is also

claiming to be 1st ranked institute for pharmacy.



CCC concluded that the claim, “1st Ranked Institute

for Pharmacy”, was not substantiated with copy of

the award certificate, details of the process for award

selection, criteria for granting the award, survey


used, names of other pharmacy institutes/ colleges

that were part of the survey, the outcome of the

survey, and details about the awarding body. The

source of the claim was not mentioned in the

advertisement.



consumers, especially students. The Digital display






was UPHELD.

165. @ 2011-C.2130 LK Education &

Academy


(http://outlookindia.com)(English) (21.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Travel & Tourism Courses”















(http://outlookindia.com) and observed that the

Advertiser is offering coaching for Travel and

Tourism Courses, and Diploma in Tourism

Management, and have claimed to be No.1 for their

travel and tourism courses.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Travel &

Tourism Courses” was not substantiated with


academy versus other similar academies, to prove

that they are in leadership position (No.1) for their

travel and tourism courses. The claim was not

validated through an independent third party. The


advertisement. The claim is misleading by


http://livehindustan.com/

http://outlookindia.com/


disappointment in the minds of students. The Digital



Programs as well as Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of


166. @ 2011-C.2132 Vajirao & Reddy Institute


(http://mysmartprice.com)(English) (21.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Join Delhi’s No.1 IAS Coaching”















and observed that the Advertiser is promoting

Coaching classes for IAS exams.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Join Delhi’s No.1

IAS Coaching” was not substantiated with verifiable


other similar institutes in Delhi, to prove that they are

in leadership position (No.1) than all the rest for IAS

coaching. The claim was not validated through an

independent third party. The source for the claim was

also not indicated in the advertisement.






Chapters I.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


167. @ 2011-C.2133 Vellore Institute of

Technology (VIT)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://ilovepdf.com)

(English) (30.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Private Institute for Innovation (ARIIA, Gol)”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “ASCI email does not contain

the url in which such an advertisement was found.

They have no association whatsoever with

‘ilovepdf.com’ website nor they engage any such

advertisement arrangement with such a website. As

on this day they have not run any such

advertisement captioned “Vellore Institute of

Technology — No.1 Private Institute Innovation

(ARIIA, GoI). They have been ranked first under the

category of private or self-financed institutions by

ARIIA, Government of India.”


of the award certificate.


the digital display advertisement

(http://ilovepdf.com) and considered the advertiser’s

response and the award certificate provided by them.

The CCC noted the advertiser’s assertions that Atal

Ranking of Institutions on Innovation Achievements

(ARIIA) Ranking 2019, GOI, has ranked the

advertiser’s institute as first under the category of

private or self financed institutions. However, the

photograph of the award certificate is by itself not

sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Additionally, details on the protocol/process followed

by the awarding/ranking organization is required to

substantiate the claim.


concluded that the claim, “No.1 Private Institute for

Innovation (ARIIA, Gol)”, was not substantiated with

supporting ranking data such as details of the process

for award selection, criteria for granting the award,

survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other institutes that

were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey,

and the details of the awarding body. The source for


The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The digital



Programs, Clauses 8 i ii(ia) ii(a b c) of the ASCI



http://ilovepdf.com/

http://ilovepdf.com/



168. @ 2011-C.2134 Youth Destination IAS

Coaching

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://marugujarat.in)

(English) (13.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. No.1 faculty of teachers

2. India’s best test series program















(http://marugujarat.in) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting Coaching class for UPSC and

State PCS exams. The advertiser has also claimed

that they provide `India’s best test series programs’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 faculty of

teachers” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser and other similar

coaching centres, to prove that their faculty of

teachers are in leadership position (No.1) or through

an independent third party validation. The source for


Claim, “India’s best test series program” was not


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser versus

other similar coaching centres in India, to prove that

the test series program offered by them is better than

all the rest. The claim was also not backed by an




minds of students. The Digital display advertisement





169. @ 2011-C.2136 Agrawal Construction Co

(The Sage Group)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Bhopal Edition, Main

Issue(English) (02.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Top Real Estate Brand - Times Real Estate Icons

West India

2. Most Promising Group of the year award award by

honorable CM Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan by FICCI










telecom with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did

not avail nor did they submit their written response.





observed that the advertiser is a real estate builder

and construction company. They have made the said

claims on the basis of the awards received by them.



CCC concluded that the claims, “Top Real Estate

Brand - Times Real Estate Icons West India” and

“Most Promising Group of the year award award by

honorable CM Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan by

FICCI”, were not substantiated copy of the awards

certificates, details of the process for awards

selection, criteria for granting the awards, survey


used, names of other similar real estate companies

that were part of the surveys, the outcome of the

surveys, and the details of the awarding bodies. The

source for the claims was not indicated in the

advertisement.



minds of consumers The print advertisement

contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines for Usage of


was UPHELD.




170. @ 2011-C.2137 Atul Latika Hospital and

Sarthak IVF Center (Dr. Latika Agarwal)




Claim objected to:

“Laparoscopy/Hysteroscopy By India's Best Team”
















observed that the advertiser is providing laparoscopy

and hysteroscopy treatment and is also claiming that

the treatment is done by India’s best team.



CCC concluded that the claim,

“Laparoscopy/Hysteroscopy By India's Best Team”



team executing the treatment versus team of other

hospitals in India providing the said treatment, to

prove that the advertiser’s team is better than all the

rest, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation. The CCC also noted that medical

treatment is a subjective matter and the Advertiser

should not state that their team is the best in India.



public. The print advertisement contravened Chapters

1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint

was UPHELD.

171. @ 2011-C.2138 Brajraj Hospital (IVF/

Test Tube Baby Centre)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Lucknow Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Highest Success Rate”
















observed that the advertiser is providing IUI, IVF,

blastocyst culture, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, laser

hatching, PRP treatments. The CCC also observed

that the advertiser did not provide verifiable

comparative data of the IVF treatments performed

through the advertiser’s hospital which were

successful and other hospitals providing similar

treatments, to validate that their success rate is

highest. The claim was not backed by a third party

validation.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Highest Success

Rate” was not substantiated.






172. @ 2011-C.2139 Denasia Super Specialty

Dental Hospital

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Bhopal Edition, Main

Issue(Hindi) (29.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Largest Dental Chain of Central India”

















observed that the advertiser is providing single siting

root canal, digital smile design and other dental

related treatments.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Largest Dental Chain

of Central India” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s dental

clinic versus other dental clinics in Central India, to

prove that their dental chain is larger than all the rest,

nor the claim was backed by a third party validation.






173. @ 2011-C.2140 Dietitian Shreya’s Family

Diet Clinic

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement Chandigarh Bhaskar (Hindi)

(29.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Excellence in Diabetes Management & Hormonal

Imbalance Award 2019

2. Award Holder Global Women Leadership in

Tricity

3. Awarded North India Women Achiever Award

4. Lifestyle Women Achievers Award

5. No Gyming, No Medicines, No Starvation – Lose

Upto 4 to 5 Kg & 4 to 5 Inches

Additionally, efficacy depicted via the visual of

before and after the treatment appear to be

misleading
















observed that the advertiser is providing its customers

with diet plan for weight loss as well as other diet

plans for diabetes, PCOD, and thyroid COVID-19

etc,. and is also awarded with certain titles in the

Healthcare field.

The CCC discussed that the advertiser did not

provide copy of the award certificates, details of the

process for awards selection, criteria for granting the

awards, survey methodologies, parameters


similar clinics that were part of the surveys, the

outcome of the surveys, and details about the




“Excellence in Diabetes Management & Hormonal

Imbalance Award 2019”, “Award Holder Global

Women Leadership in Tricity”, “Awarded North

India Women Achiever Award”, and “Lifestyle

Women Achievers Award”, were not substantiated

with supporting ranking data. The source for the

claims was not mentioned in the advertisement.

Advertiser did not provide details of their treatment

procedure for weight reduction nor did they provide

evidence of their customers who achieved the

claimed results of losing upto 4 to 5 Kgs and 4 to 5

Inches regardless of their physiological status and

lifestyle, without gyming, medicines, and starvation.


concluded that the claim, “No Gyming, No

Medicines, No Starvation – Lose Upto 4 to 5 Kg & 4

to 5 Inches”, was not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence based on rigorous trial on

statistically significant number of patients

successfully treated at their clinic.



minds of consumers. Also, treatment efficacy being

depicted via images of before and after the treatment

are misleading. The print advertisement contravened

Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and



174. @ 2011-C.2141 Eternal Multispecialty

Hospital





Claim objected to:

“With a Team of Most Proficient and Eminent

Cardiac Specialities in the State and with State of the

Art Technology”
















observed that the advertiser’s hospital is providing

complete cardiac care. Upon careful consideration of



claim, “With a Team of Most Proficient and Eminent

Cardiac Specialities in the State and with State of the

Art Technology” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s hospital’s versus other

hospitals providing cardiac treatments in the state

(Rajasthan), to prove that the advertiser’s team is

most proficient and eminent than all the rest. The

claim was also not backed by an independent third

party validation. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers. The print

advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5


.

175. @ 2011-C.2178 Ducat

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://w3schools.com)

(English) (05.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. With 100% Placement Support

2. Ducat is the Best AI using Python training Institute

in Noida








claims with the required supporting data. . The








(http://w3schools.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing artificial

intelligence learning through python training and is

also assuring placement support to their students.




placement support to their students for getting jobs in

relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical is not

relevant for “100% Placement Support” claim. There

cannot be a percentage assigned to any support claim

such as 40% or 80% support. The use of “100%” as a



the minds of students.

Claim, “Ducat is the Best AI using Python training

Institute in Noida” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s training institute versus other

institutes in Noida, to prove that they are better than

the rest in providing AI learning, nor the claim was







Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the


176. @ 2011-C.2186 IEC Group of Institutions

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://mockbank.com)

(English) (15.09.2020)


Claim objected to:
















complaint.


(http://mockbank.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is promoting students to start a

career in pharma with their institute and is assuring




while the advertiser may be providing placement








disappointment in the minds of students.



and Programs as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the


177. @ 2011-C.2187 International Institute of

Import & Export Management (IIIEM)

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://123telugu.com)

(English) (24.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Business Support”














complaint.


(http://123telugu.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is imparting practical training of

international business and is claiming to provide

100% business support to their students.




providing business support to their students in import

export business, however, the use of 100% numerical

is not relevant for “100% business support” claim.

There cannot be a percentage assigned to any support

claim such as 40% or 80% support. The use of







Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


178. @ 2011-C.2188 IIMT Group of Colleges




Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Assistant (Assistance)”














complaint.



advertiser’s college is assuring placement assistant to

their students. Upon careful consideration of the



advertiser may be providing placement assistant to



Placement Assistant (Assistance)” claim. There


cannot be a percentage assigned to any assistant

claim such as 40% or 80% assistant. The use of






Programs as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI


FSSAI Complaints:

179. @ 2010-C.1652 Fazlani Exports Pvt. Ltd

– Fazlani Foods (Chick Peas Curry with Basmati

Rice)


(http://instructables.com), (English) (01.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Totally Natural, No Preservatives and Gluten Free”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







submitted their written response in which they

commented on ASCI’s jurisdiction.

Advertiser subsequently requested for an extension of

15 days to submit their detailed response to the

objections raised in the complaint. The deadlines












extension of additional five business days to respond.

Advertiser stated that “The composition of products

used by them is itself a proof that the product is

natural and gluten free. They use retort technology

which helps to attain a longer shelf life of the product

without adding any preservatives.”

Advertiser in their response also shared few website

links that define the retort process

https://www.foodbuddies.in/retort-technology-in-

food-processing-

industry/#:~:text=What%20is%20Retorting%3F,steri

lization%20by%20application%20of%20heat,

https://www.retorts.com/white-

papers/category/retort-processes/


of the Product packaging, License copy from FSSAI,

and Composition details of the product available on

the packaging.


(http://instructables.com) and considered the


ingredients list on the product packaging does not

indicate that the food product (Chick Peas Curry with

Basmati Rice) has preservatives or gluten, and it also

justifies the product to be natural. The advertiser’s

assertion that retort technology is used to attain a

longer shelf life of the product without adding any

preservatives was acceptable by the CCC.


supporting data provided, the CCC did not consider

the claim, “Totally Natural, No Preservatives and

Gluten Free” to be objectionable. The CCC

concluded that the digital display advertisement is not

in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This

complaint was NOT UPHELD.

180. @ 2011-C.1865 K. M. Hing Udyog (KM

Hing & Masale)

MEDIUM: News18(*) Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand

(Hindi) (04.09.2020) (10 Secs) (18:22:03)


Claims objected to:

1. No.1 Hing and Masalas

2. First Choice of Every Household















advertiser is promoting products like premium

quality Asafoetida and other various types of packed

garam masalas / spices.

http://instructables.com/

https://www.foodbuddies.in/retort-technology-in-food-processing-industry/#:~:text=What%20is%20Retorting%3F,sterilization%20by%20application%20of%20heat




https://www.retorts.com/white-papers/category/retort-processes/

https://www.retorts.com/white-papers/category/retort-processes/

http://instructables.com/



the absence of response was received from the

Advertiser to substantiate both claims, it concluded

that the claims, “No.1 Hing and Masalas” and was


the advertiser’s products and other manufacturers of

Hing and Masala brands, to prove that they are in


third party validation. The source for the claim was


Claim, “First Choice of Every Household”, was not



products and other manufacturers of Hing and Masala

brands, to prove that their products are given the first

choice than the others, nor the claim was backed by

an independent third party validation.



minds of consumers. The TVC contravened Chapters

1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


181. @ 2011-C.1884 Jay Shree Tea &

Industries Ltd


(http://moneycontrol.com), National Edition

(English) (13.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The World’s Best Loose Leaf Darjeeling Tea”















(http://moneycontrol.com) and observed that the

advertiser is into loose tea leaves business.



CCC concluded that the claim, “The World’s Best

Loose Leaf Darjeeling Tea” was not substantiated

with any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s product versus

other manufacturers of loose leaf tea brands

worldwide, to prove that they are better than the rest,




consumers. The digital display advertisement

contravened the Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the


182. @ 2011-C.1911 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari

Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd - Gokul Range of

Products

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Kolhapur Edition,

Supplement Swayampoorna Kolhapur (Marathi)

(14.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Experience the Best Milk”















observed that the advertiser is promoting milk and

other dairy products. Upon careful consideration of



“Experience the Best Milk” was not substantiated

with market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s milk brand

versus other milk brands, to prove that their product

is better than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by

a third party validation. The claim is misleading by



advertisement contravened the Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and

1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

183. @ 2011-C.1959 Mishkat Agro Industries

Pvt Ltd (Range of Products)





Claim objected to:

“We Select the Best Grains from Crops of Farmers

all over the Country”















observed that the advertiser offers wide range of

specialty flour such as the Whole Wheat Flour,

milled refined and bleached wheat flour (Maida),

Semolina (Rava/Sooji), Besan (Gram Flour), Snacks,

Fryums and other ready to eat delicacies under the

brand name Energetic.



CCC concluded that the claim, “We Select the Best

Grains from Crops of Farmers all over the Country”

was not substantiated with market survey data or with


product versus other similar range of products in the

country, to prove that their range of products is made

of better grains than all the rest. The claim was also

not backed by a third-party validation. The claim is



consumers. The print advertisement contravened the



184. @ 2011-C.1976 Amir Chicken

MEDIUM: Pudhari, Pune Edition, Supplement My

Pune (Marathi) (20.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. No.1

2. Only Successful Company in India in Chicken

Retail Business

3. India's Largest Chicken Retailer














The CCC viewed the print advertisement and noted

that the advertiser is into Chicken retailing business.


the absence of any response from the advertiser,

concluded that the claims, “No.1”, “Only Successful

Company in India in Chicken Retail Business”, and

“India's Largest Chicken Retailer” were not


advertiser’s company and other similar chicken

retailers in India, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1), only successful company, and larger

than all the others. The claims were not backed by an

independent third-party validation. The source for the

claims, “No.1” and “India's Largest Chicken

Retailer” was not indicated in the advertisement.



minds of the consumers. The Print advertisement

contravened the Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the


185. @ 2011-C.1977 STL Pharma Pvt. Ltd

(360 Degree Organic) – Morning Mantra

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Panaji Edition, Main Issue

(Marathi) (29.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. For Boosting Immunity Power

2. To Remove Heart Blockage

3. Reducing Cholesterol
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a food

product - `Morning Mantra’ which claims to boost

immunity power, removes heart blockages, and

reduces cholesterol. However, the advertiser did not

provide any specific information for the product such

as copy of Product approval license, product label,

and Product composition details nor any technical

rationale for the product claims.



concluded that the claims, “For Boosting Immunity

Power”, “To Remove Heart Blockage” and

“Reducing Cholesterol” were not substantiated with

clinical evidence of product efficacy. The CCC was

of the view that the advertiser is promoting a food

product claiming benefits of therapeutic nature,

which are misleading by exaggeration and exploit’s

consumers’ lack of knowledge, and are likely to lead

to widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers. The print advertisement contravened the



186. @ 2011-C.1996 OZiva - Oziva Plant

Based Collagen Builder

MEDIUM: Digital Video, (http://youtube.com),

(English) (21.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s First Plant Based Collagen (Voice Over)”














The CCC viewed the Digital video advertisement and

noted that the Advertiser is promoting a product

which is plant based collagen builder with features to

assist in skin repairing and regeneration.



CCC concluded that the voice over claim, “India’s

First Plant Based Collagen” was not substantiated


product versus other similar type of products in India,

to prove that their product is first plant based

collagen builder, nor the claim was backed by a third



disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

Digital video advertisement contravened Chapters


was UPHELD.

187. @ 2011-C.2003 Nutritionalab Pvt. Ltd.

(Wellbeing Nutrition)-Daily Greens

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://latimes.com),

National Edition (English) (10.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s 1st Organic Whole Food Multivitamin”















(http://latimes.com) and noted that the Advertiser is

promoting a product which is a multivitamin tablet

claimed to be `India’s first organic whole

multivitamin’. The advertisement also stated that the

tablet includes nutrition from thirty nine fruits and

vegetables.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India’s 1st Organic

Whole Food Multivitamin” was not substantiated


product versus other similar type of products in India,

to prove that their product is India’s first Organic

http://latimes.com/


Whole Food Multivitamin, nor the claim was backed

by a third party validation. The claim is misleading



Digital display advertisement contravened Chapters


was UPHELD.

188. @ 2011-C.2119 Butterfly Ayurveda Pvt

Ltd – Heart Strong Infusion

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://coingecko.com)

National Edition, (English) (08.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Keep your Heart Strong and Healthy with Heart

Strong Infusion”
















(http://coingecko.com), and observed that the

advertiser is promoting a food product - `Heart

Strong Infusion’ claiming that it keeps the heart

strong and healthy. The CCC observed that the


information such as copy of product approval license,

product label, and product composition details, nor

any scientific or technical rationale for the product

claim.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Keep

your Heart Strong and Healthy with Heart Strong

Infusion”, was not substantiated with clinical

evidence of product efficacy. The claim is



The Digital display advertisement contravened



189. @ 2011-C.2120 Sushrut Ayurved

Industries (Sugar Knocker)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://mail.com)

(English) (19.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Treat the root cause not the symptoms

2. Sugar Knocker

Objection:

The above claim and the name of the product “Sugar

Knocker” imply that the product is meant to cure

diabetes
















(http://mail.com) and noted that the advertiser is

promoting a food product – Sugar Knocker claiming

that their product would regulate blood sugar

naturally. The CCC observed that the advertiser did

not provide product specific information such as copy

of product approval license, product label, and

product composition details, nor any scientific

rationale for the product claims.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Treat

the root cause not the symptoms” and “Sugar

Knocker”, were not substantiated with clinical

evidence of product efficacy. The claim, “Treat the

root cause not the symptoms” is misleading by

exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave


claim / product name `Sugar Knocker’ is misleading

by implication that the product is meant to cure

diabetes. The Digital display advertisement



about:blank

about:blank


AYUSH Complaints:

190. @ 2011-C.1958 Gopal Ayurvedic Center –

Gopal Skin Care Kit

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement Chandigarh Bhaskar (English)

(15.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Prevents Anti-Aging, Stretch Marks”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting its skin care

kit by claiming to prevent anti-aging and stretch

marks. The CCC observed that the advertiser did not

provide product specific information such as copy of

product approval license, product label, and product





“prevent anti-aging and stretch marks” was not

substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence of

product efficacy. The claim is misleading by





UPHELD.

191. @ 2011-C.1975 Unique Permanent Hair

Loss Powder

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Allahabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Freedom from Hair through Powder Permanently”
















that the advertiser is promoting permanent hair loss

powder and claimed to achieve life time removal of

unwanted hair. The CCC observed that the advertiser

did not provide product specific information such as

copy of product approval license, product label, and

product composition details.




“Freedom from Hair through Powder Permanently”

was not substantiated with any supporting clinical

evidence of product efficacy. The claim is misleading





UPHELD.

192. @ 2011-C.2000 Venkateswara Ayurveda

Nilayam Ltd – Vandige


(http://greatandhra.com), National Edition (English)

(12.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Protects from Liver Disorder

2. Contained Pure Gold

















(http://greatandhra.com) and observed that advertiser

has claimed that their product - Vandige tablets

improves appetite, regulates bowel conditions, is

remedy for indigestion and protects from liver

disorder and is natural with zero side effects.








“Protects from liver disorder” was not substantiated

with any supporting clinical evidence of product

efficacy. Claim, “Contained Pure Gold”, was not

substantiated with any evidence of the ingredients

present in the product.



minds of consumers. The digital display



193. @ 2010-C.2002 Sat Kartar Shopping Pvt.

Ltd (Ayurvedic Pack for Piles, Fistula, Fissures)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://leaf.tv), National

Edition (Hindi + English) (14.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Gets Rid of Piles in 4 Days”
















(http://leaf.tv) and noted that the advertiser is

promoting its Ayurvedic pack by claiming to provide

guaranteed effect to cure Piles, Fistula and Fissures.




details, and evidence of the ingredients present in the

product.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Gets Rid of Piles in 4

Days” was not substantiated with product efficacy

data. The claim is misleading by exaggeration and is



advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of


194. @ 2010-C.2118 Climic Health Pvt. Ltd

(Curveda Range of Products)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://storypick.com)

(English) (23.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Award-winning Veg Collagen”









Advocates. Advocate on behalf of the advertiser

provided a copy of the award certificate and a report

of their client. Advocate further assured to modify or

to withdraw the advertisement based on the CCC

recommendation.


requested the advocate / advertiser to provide the

details of the survey methodology with the outcome

of the survey, and any financial transaction involved

for participating and/or receiving such award.

In response to ASCI query, the advocate responded

that “this award was given by YOUR STORY and

government of India ministry of MSME so there lies

question for any financial transaction involved.

Additionally there was a online questionnaire and a

selection criteria was laid down by the organisers.

There were more than 2000 applicants of which 41

MSME’s were awarded in 17 different sectors.”

Advocate in their response referred to a website link

for the award details -


https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/yourstory.com/smbst

ory/msme-brands-of-india-awards-giriraj-singh/amp

Advocate further advised the ASCI Secretariat to

approach directly the organising committee for

details of survey methodology.


the Digital Display advertisement

(http://storypick.com) and considered the advocate’s

response. The CCC observed that the advertiser has

made the said claim on the basis of the award granted

to them by `YourStory’ in association with MSME –

Development Institute (as mentioned in the

certificate) in February 2019. This was a certificate

of recognition presented to the advertiser in Pharma

(Micro Enterprises) category. However, the CCC

noted that the advertiser did not provide the basis of

the award or the survey methodology followed to

obtain this information such as the details of the

process as to how the selection for the award was

done, details of the criteria for granting the award,

parameters considered, questio2nnaires used, names

of other institutes / health clinics that were part of the

survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details

about the awarding body. The source for the claim


Advertiser also did not provide proof of any financial

transaction involved for any direct or indirect

payment made by the advertiser to the Institution

who had granted the said award.


the claim, “Award-winning Veg Collagen”, was

inadequately substantiated and is misleading by

exaggeration. The Digital Display advertisement

contravened Clauses 7 and 8 i ii(ia) ii(a b c) of the




195. @ 2010-C.2121 Welex Laboratories

Private Limited (Ayurin Plus)

MEDIUM: Digital Display, (http://health.raftaar.in)

(English) (21.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ayurin Plus Strengthen and Restore Kidney

Functioning”
















(http://health.raftaar.in) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting Ayurin capsule for UTI and

Kidney problems. However, the advertiser did not

provide any product specific information such as

copy of product approval license, product label, and

product composition details, and evidence of

ingredients present in the product.




“Ayurin Plus Strengthen and Restore Kidney

Functioning” was not substantiated with any

supporting clinical evidence of product efficacy. The



consumers particularly patients suffering from issues

relating to Kidney function or kidney disorder.

The digital display advertisement contravened



2012-CCC.24


[email protected]

1. OC, $ 2011-C.1776 Berger Paints India

Ltd.(*) (Berger Paints)

MEDIUM: Star Sports 1 HD(*) , Republic TV(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJpnRGOF-Q )


Number of complaints:2

Claims objected to:

1. Anti Bacteria approved by Indian medical

Association

2. Protects from Virus - Visuals contain image of

Covid-19 virus.

3. Reduces SOxNOx Gases

Complaint:

”Karenna Kapoor stars in this ad, where they claim

their paint has anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-

pollution properties. It seems patently false to claim

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/yourstory.com/smbstory/msme-brands-of-india-awards-giriraj-singh/amp

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/yourstory.com/smbstory/msme-brands-of-india-awards-giriraj-singh/amp

about:blank

http://health.raftaar.in/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJpnRGOF-Q


that a paint protects consumers against bacteria,

viruses and pollution.”

Complaint from CERC:

1. Berger Silk Breathe Easy is glamourous and

protects the house from bacteria, virus and

pollution.

2. Anti-bacteria approved by Indian Medical

Association

3. Reduces SOx NOX gases

Our objections:

1. Please substantiate all above claims with

independent claim support data. The claim

support data should not be internal or based on

studies commissioned by Berger Paints India

Limited.

2. The visual shows that it is effective against virus

that resemble COVID virus. This needs

substantiation. Even if it can protect against

COVID 19, it might only kill virus that come in

contact with walls.

3. What about the virus that travel in air? In a

situation of world pandemic, making claims like

this will create panic buying of the product in the

hope of being safe from corona infection.

4. Does the study establish the efficacy of the paint

being anti-bacterial on being exposed to different

environmental conditions in a typical home

situation? (as per the disclaimer, the antibacterial

action has been tested under standard test

conditions)

5. How long will the paint be effective against

COVID-19?

6. Kareena Kapoor features in the advertisement.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 states that an

endorser shall not be liable to a penalty by

CCPA if the endorsing celebrity has exercised

due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims

made in the advertisement regarding the product

or service endorsed by him/her. Can the

advertiser show evidence that Kareena Kapoor

has done due diligence and that she confirms all

the claims made in the advertisement?

According to us, the advertisement contravenes

Chapter 1.1 and 1.4 of ASCI Codes.

Action to be taken: We propose that the

advertisement should be immediately withdrawn.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








to seek further guidance, which they availed and

replied seeking for IR of the complaint.

Advertiser was informed by the ASCI Secretariat that

for the complaint to be resolved under IR, they would

be required to withdraw the said claims across all

media. Advertiser did not opt for IR but submitted

their detailed response within the given timelines.

Advertiser in their response stated that “the product

had been honed through continuous efforts to protect

against different strains of bacteria, viruses and

pollution and it so happens that a surface coated with

Silk Breathe Easy is also found to be effective against

the SARS COVID 19 virus. They do not engage in

claims which are not backed by scientific results.

These were carried out by independent and

accredited laboratories and they show that use of Silk

Breathe Easy on walls would help on the fronts as

claimed by Berger. They have not mentioned that

Silk Breathe Easy kills viruses which do not come

into contact with the surface. It would be

scientifically impossible.

Like all sanitisers or disinfectants, it protects the

surface on which it is applied.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided – (1)

Copy of test results of SOx & NOx absorption by

Equinox Labs, (2) Copy of test results of Shanghai

Environmental Monitoring Technical & Equipment

Company, Shanghai, (3) Copy of anti-bacterial test

reports from Ross Life Science, (4) Copy of anti-

bacterial test reports from Biotech Testing Services,

(5) Copy of anti-Covid-19 results from Rajiv Gandhi

Centre for Biotechnology.







opinion. The advertiser did not opt for an IR but

sought for a meeting with the technical expert, which

was arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.


technical expert, the advertiser submitted additional

data – (1) Test results of SOx & NOx breakdown,

(2) Test results of Formaldehyde breakdown, (3)

Test Reports - Anti-Bacterial efficacy, (4) IMA

Declaration, (5) Test Reports - Anti- Viral efficacy,

(6) Test Reports - Anti-SARS CoV-2 efficacy, (7)

Declaration of Due Diligence from Celebrity, (8)

DSIR Certification of Berger Research &

Development Facility, (9) Complaints received by

ASCI




Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) to consider.

The CCC viewed the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJpnRGOF-Q)

and considered the advertiser’s response as well as

the opinion of the Technical expert presented at the

meeting.

The CCC observed the additional field test data of

Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

test results of SOx & NOx absorption, over different

time intervals, and considered this data as adequate

for the claim substantiation.

The CCC noted that the test data from external

laboratory for anti-bacterial test by Ross Life

Sciences Pvt Ltd., which is said to be a GLP certified

& ISO/IEC17025:2005 accredited laboratory, have

found >99.9% anti-bacterial activity of Silk Breathe

Easy against Staphylococcus aureus & Escherichia

coli. The data report from Biotech Testing Services,

which is reported to be a NABL accredited

laboratory, have found >99% anti-bacterial activity of

Silk Breathe Easy against 29 disease causing

bacterial strains associated with common house hold,

hospital and food industries, by JIS Z 2801: 2010

Test Method.

Based on this assessment, the CCC was of the view

that while the claims, “Berger Silk Breathe Easy is

glamourous and protects the house from bacteria,

virus and pollution”, “Anti-bacteria approved by

Indian Medical Association”, and “Reduces SOx

NOX gases”, are technically correct under standard

test conditions, the situation depicted in the

advertisement with the protagonist (Kareena Kapoor

Khan) saying “…..aur mere ghar ko bhi protect

karta hai bacteria virus aur pollution se”, the

consumer may be misled that the product protects the

people living inside the house and keeps them safe.

The CCC concluded that the advertisement is



consumers. The TVC and the YouTube

advertisement contravened Chapters I.4 and I.5 of


For the objection raised against the celebrity

endorsing the product, the CCC observed that the

advertiser has submitted evidence that the celebrity

(Kareena Kapoor Khan) has done due diligence and

that she confirms all the claims made in the

advertisement. This complaint was NOT

UPHELD.

1. #, OC 2011-C.2197 Matrimony.com Ltd(*)

(Bharat Matrimony)

MEDIUM: Website Advertisement

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTsyeAx0CY,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E7_Gifs08w,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_crbzF_osE,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vap7hQPEROU)


Claim objected to:

“The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Indians”

Complaint:

“1. We, People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd. are the

owners and operators of the internet-based

business www.shaadi.com with nearly 25 years of

experience in the matchmaking business. The present

complaint is being filed by us against the Advertiser

and the claims being made by the Advertiser with

respect to its Brand - ‘Bharat Matrimony’, through

various mediums viz. (i) YouTube Channel and (ii)

Website (https://www.matrimony.com,

2.The Advertiser’s Claim - The No. 1 & Most

Trusted Matrimony Service for Indians (“Claim”)

and the Advertisements which have been in

circulation since April, 2018 and the claims on its

website(s) are in violation of the ASCI Code. The

links to the Advertisements are enclosed hereto

as Annexure No.1.

3. We draw your attention to the following

provisions of the ASCI code which are blatantly and

knowingly being violated by the impugned

Advertisements and Claim being made by the

Advertiser:

Provisions under ASCI Code: ● Awards/Rankings should not be used as an

alternative for consumer or scientific research or

testing which is required to substantiate a superiority

claim about the effective use or performance of

products or services. Advertisements that refer to

awards/rankings should indicate clearly the name of

the organisation that has provided the award/ranking

and the month and year in which the award/ranking

was pronounced. The validity of the award/ranking

so used to substantiate a claim should be of a period

preceding the advertisement by not more than 12

months.

● Advertisement shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumer by means of implications or

omissions. Advertisements shall not contain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJpnRGOF-Q

http://www.shaadi.com/

https://www.matrimony.com/


statements or visual presentation which directly or by

implication or by omission or by ambiguity or by

exaggeration are likely to mislead the consumer

about the product advertised or the advertiser or

about any other product or advertiser.

● Advertisement shall not be framed as to abuse the

trust of consumers or exploit their lack of experience

or knowledge. No advertisement shall be permitted to

contain any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave

or widespread disappointment in the minds of

consumers.

4. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid provisions

of the ASCI Code, it becomes clear that in order to

sustain a claim relating to an award/ranking of a

product/service, consumer or scientific research is to

be undertaken. Further, an advertisement should

clearly indicate the name of the organization that has

provided the award/ranking and the year in which it

was pronounced. The ASCI Code further goes on to

clarify that the validity of the award/ranking should

be of a period preceding the advertisement by not

more than 12 months.

5. With reference to the impugned

Advertisements and the Claim, we would like to

submit as under:

a. A perusal of the various impugned

Advertisements circulating on the YouTube channel

of the Advertiser indicates that its Claim is that it is

‘The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Indians’. (“Claim”). Further, the website of the

Advertiser also depicts this Claim of the Advertiser

which is evidenced by the screenshots of the website

of the Advertiser, enclosed hereto as Annexure No.2.

It is pertinent to note that the Advertiser has not

provided any details to substantiate the Claim in the

impugned Advertisements including but not limited

to the organization which has awarded the aforesaid

ranking to the Advertiser and the year in which such

ranking was awarded. Hence, such Claim is baseless

and made with an intention to mislead the general

public.

b. In addition to the aforesaid, a perusal of the

purported awards and accolades and website of

the Advertiser, provided

at https://www.matrimony.com/awards.php indica

tes that there are no valid awards/rankings

granted to the Advertiser which would

substantiate the Claim, as many of the supposed

awards are of a period preceding the Advertisements

by more than 12 months. In fact, a perusal of the

‘About Us’ section of the website provided

at https://www.matrimony.com/aboutus.php indicates

that the basis for the Claim that the Advertiser is

allegedly the ‘Most Trusted Matrimony Brand’ is a

Brand Trust Report from the year 2014, which

precedes the Advertisements in question by more

than 5 years.

c. Further, we have also analyzed the google trend

data relating to search volumes using the keywords

“shaadi.com” which is our website as compared with

“Bharat Matrimony’ and its various offshoots in

several states, and it is clear from this data

that shaadi.com has a higher search volume in every

state. The particulars of the google trend data is

enclosed hereto as AnnexureNo.3.

6. We therefore submit that it is evident from the

aforesaid that the Claim of the Advertiser is not

supported by any evidence and/or data and/or any

consumer or scientific research. Further, by way of

the impugned Advertisements, the Advertiser is

attempting to distort facts and mislead the consumer

by omitting to substantiate the Claim and leading

them to believe its Claim that it is in fact the No.1 &

Most Trusted Matrimony Service, which Claim is

false to the knowledge of the Advertiser itself.

Further, the Advertiser is attempting to abuse the

trust of consumers by making exaggerated claims

about its products/services.”

Website Link: https://www.matrimony.com

YouTube(*): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX

TsyeAx0CY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E7_Gifs08w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_crbzF_osE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vap7hQPEROU

CCC RECOMMENDATION:









replied requesting for an extension of time to submit

their detailed response.

The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints









https://www.matrimony.com/awards.php

https://www.matrimony.com/aboutus.php

http://shaadi.com/

http://shaadi.com/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTsyeAx0CY








extension of additional two business days to respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “Bharat

Matrimony is India’s leading provider of online

matchmaking services to users in India

complemented by on-the-ground network of 130+

retail centres in India. They have also provided

Google trends report on Individual domain basis

which clearly establishes the No.1 position of Bharat

Matrimony which comprises network of 15 portals.

In the Google report of Keyword search, the average

search numbers of Bharat Matrimony is 3,68,000

(numbers) as compared to that of Shaadi which is

2,46,000 (numbers). Further the keyword average

search of individual searches also prove that they are

No.1. The Comparison between Bharat Matrimony

and Shaadi at an Pan India basis for Google

Keywords search shows Average Monthly search of

Google for Bharat Matrimony is 3,68,000 numbers

while that of Shaadi shows it as 2,46,000

numbers. The Google Key word volume document

for key word searches for regional domains under

Bharat Matrimony as compared with Shaadi regional

domains also shows that the regional domains of

Bharat Matrimony on top.”


Google Trends report, (2) Google Review report, (3)

Google Keyword search report for Bharat Matrimony

and its network of 15 portals, (4) Google Search

Volume PPT- Dec 7, 2020, (5) Google Business

review - Aug 2020 to Dec 7, 2020, (6) Bharat

Matrimony - Query trends- Dec 7, 2020, (7)

Annexure to ASCI - Links to Google Trends and

Adwords URL - Dec 7, 2020.

Advertiser in their response shared website links for

articles in the press about Bharat Matrimony, and

also provided the comparative figures for Google

keyword search on an individual domain basis.

As this data being inadequate as claim support data,

ASCI Secretariat requested the advertiser to provide

market research data, or comparative studies to

support the claim. There was no response received

from the advertiser.

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement

(https://www.matrimony.com) and YouTube

advertisements

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTsyeAx0CY)

, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E7_Gifs08w),

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_crbzF_osE),

and

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vap7hQPEROU

) and considered the advertiser’s response and the

supporting data provided by them.

The CCC was of the view that while there are other

search engines, Google is probably the more popular

one and is most likely to be used by the users

worldwide as a preferred search engine. In digital

marketing, the evaluation of websites, blogs is more

dependent on the number of searches and traffic on

such websites, the data of which is also provided

through Google reports. However, Google trends is

not a third party platform and it provides research

data only for the searches that are made through

Google.

The CCC felt that the Google analytic data is by itself

not sufficient evidence to support the claim, and did

not consider this data as acceptable as it is only

search data which does not make the advertiser’s

brand/service as No.1 and most trusted. The

advertiser can claim themselves to be `No.1 searched

brand’ but not `No.1 and most trusted’. The revenue

figures and the profit figures quoted in the

advertiser’s response comparing themselves with that

of the complainant was not considered relevant, as

according to the CCC, even with less number of

searches the complainant or any other competitor

could have a higher revenue. For claiming to be

No.1, the volume of search interest does not suffice,

instead the number of individuals registered with the

website should be given weightage.

Furthermore, the CCC was of the opinion that “trust”

is a subjective term and the claim “most trusted” is

required to be substantiated by an independent third

party consumer survey data. The parameter they have

used to claim No.1 and most trusted does not justify

the claim made and is not recognised for a claim of

this nature.


the claim, “The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony

Service for Indians”, was inadequately substantiated

with verifiable comparative data with market sales

data, volume and value share data, or any third party



the minds of consumers. The source for the claim

was not indicated in the advertisements. The Website

advertisement and the YouTube advertisements

contravened Chapters I.1, I.2, I.4 and I.5 of the


2. #, OC 2011-C.2213 Matrimony.com Ltd (*)

(Bengalimatrimony.com)

MEDIUM: Website Advertisements

YouTube (*)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TNTYOSZBOg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobDFIyCRNQ










https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXLSZ0Amer0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDD62TbVOPI


Claim objected to:

“The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Bengalis”

Complaint:

CLAIM CHALLENGED: The Advertiser’s Claim -

The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Bengalis (“Claim”) and the Advertisements which

have been in circulation since October 2018 and

the claims on its website(s) are in violation of the

following ASCI Codes.

We draw your attention to the following provisions

of the ASCI code which are blatantly and knowingly

being violated by the impugned Advertisements and

Claim being made by the Advertiser:

ASCI CODE PROVISIONS VIOLATED:

● Awards/Rankings should not be used as an

alternative for consumer or scientific research or

testing which is required to substantiate a

superiority claim about the effective use or

performance of products or services.

Advertisements that refer to awards/rankings

should indicate clearly the name of the

organisation that has provided the award/ranking

and the month and year in which the

award/ranking was pronounced. The validity of

the award/ranking so used to substantiate a claim

should be of a period preceding the

advertisement by not more than 12 months.

● Advertisement shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumer by means of implications

or omissions. Advertisements shall not contain

statements or visual presentation which directly

or by implication or by omission or by ambiguity

or by exaggeration are likely to mislead the

consumer about the product advertised or the

advertiser or about any other product or

advertiser.

● Advertisement shall not be framed as to abuse

the trust of consumers or exploit their lack of

experience or knowledge. No advertisement shall

be permitted to contain any claim so exaggerated

as to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers.

THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE are, in order to

sustain a claim relating to an award/ranking of a

product/service, consumer or scientific research is to

be undertaken. Further, an advertisement should

clearly indicate the name of the organization that has

provided the award/ranking and the year in which it

was pronounced. The ASCI Code further goes on to

clarify that the validity of the award/ranking should

be of a period preceding the advertisement by not

more than 12 months.

MEDIUM OF ADVERTISEMENTS:

Advertisements circulating on the YouTube channel

of the Advertiser indicates that its Claim is that it is

‘The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony Service for

Bengalis’. Further, the website of the Advertiser also

depicts this Claim of the Advertiser.

YouTube links of the advertisements:





Website link of the Advertiser:

https://www.bengalimatrimony.com/

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser in their response stated that “They are

now providing Google trends report comparing all

the possible usage of keywords for West Bengal,

India and Worldwide from 8 Dec 2019 to 16 August

2020 and Google keyword search Volume report

comparing all the possible combination of keywords

for West Bengal, India and all locations i.e.

worldwide from Nov 2019 to Oct 2020.

They have provided Google keyword search Volume

report using various combination of keywords which

clearly establishes the No.1 position of Bengali

Matrimony. Attached the Google trends comparison

for all the possible usage of keywords Bengali

Matrimony and Bengali Shaadi for the period 8th

Dec 2019 to 16th August 2020 which clearly shows

that Bengali Matrimony is ranked higher and popular

than Bengali Shaadi.”


Google Trends screen shots - Bengali matrimony-

Dec 10, 2020, (2) Bengali Matrimony vs Bengali

Shaadi - Keyword Search Volume- Dec 10, 2020




support the claim. Advertiser requested for an





extension to submit this data. The deadlines












extension of one additional business day to respond.

There was no response received from the advertiser

in time for the CCC meeting.

The CCC viewed the Website advertisement

(https://www.bengalimatrimony.com/) and YouTube

advertisements


, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobDFIyCRNQ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXLSZ0Amer0,


and considered the advertiser’s response and the

supporting data provided by them.


search engines as well, Google is one of such search

engines which is most likely to be used by the users

worldwide as a search engine. In digital marketing

the evaluation of websites, blogs is more of




not a third party platform and that it provides

research data only for the searches that are made

through Google.

The CCC felt that the Google analytic data is by itself

not sufficient evidence to support the claim, and did

not consider this data as acceptable as it is only

search data which does not make the advertiser’s

brand/service as No.1 and most trusted. The

advertiser can claim themselves to be `No.1 search

brand’ but not `No.1 and most trusted’. The revenue

figures and the profit figures quoted in the



according to the CCC, the less number of searches

they can have a higher revenue. For claiming to be

No.1, the volume of search interest does not suffice,

instead the number of individuals registered with the

website should be given weightage. Advertiser relied

on data which was available on Google trend, and

the advertiser did not provide a certification by an

independent third party to validate the data of being

`No.1 and most trusted’ matrimony service for

Bengalis. Data from Google trend is not sufficient to

prove the claim as the same cannot be construed as a

third party. The parameter they have used to claim

No.1 and most trusted does not justify the claim

made and is not recognised for a claim of this nature.

They have not used the correct data to make an

appropriate claim.



Service for Bengalis” was inadequately substantiated










3. W 2012-C.2281 Kirti Group (Kirti Gold

Premium Cooking Oil)

MEDIUM: Instagram advertisement

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CGUNEBeBncg/?igsh

id=17xlgzu42r3h5) and Facebook advertisement


“Www.instagram.com/kirtigold

Www.instagram.com/kirtigoldofficial

Advertisement detail

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGUNEBeBncg/?igshi

d=17xlgzu42r3h5

Simple rule-highest likes. Then i cross checked with

their team members Onig and fb Winners

announcement

Link of fb -

https://www.facebook.com/899760913380024/posts/

3575074792515276/

Link of ig -

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/?

Series of events which raised suspicion that brand

does not want to give prize.

1)Announcement done on 14th November.

2)i suddenly get fake/bot comments 7days after the

announcement (attaching screenshot

3)i REMOVED THE TAGS 6DAYS BACK (ONE

DAY AFTER THESE FAKE COMMENTS) because

it gives a bad impression on my profile since i never

take bot likes. See, edited 6days back.

4)Now, when i asked about the prize, i was told i was

disqualified, because i edited tags. He knew someone

is posting fake comments.

5)theni put the tags back. Today finally they said the

same thing. Its ridiculous. One needs to PAY to post

fake comments, No contestant will pay to post, iwont








do it. So eirher the brand had done it. Its 15k cash.

17th November these comments started

appearing.Soi removed REMOVED the tag, not

edited as they are saying I did some

"scam.Everything on ig is transparent. They can see

my post "insights" it has reached 2689 people out of

which 2683 liked. They cant find any reason to

disqualify me, so this foul play.

I totally suspect foul play from the brand. Because,

fake comments and bots need to be oaid. Any

contestant would not do it after the winner

announcement. It has to be brand itself. They dont

want to give away the promised prize amount.

Now the brand has blocked me. However they still

havent removed the winners announcement post.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/?igshid=

1nwo8o60w7rv8”



in addressing the in addressing the grievances of the



to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an

option to seek Informal Resolution (IR) of the

complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims

objected to in the advertisement, or alternately to

substantiate the claims with the required supporting

data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity

for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they

did not avail nor did they submit their written

response. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

noted that no response was received from the


complaint.

The CCC viewed the Facebook post

(https://www.facebook.com/899760913380024/posts/

3575074792515276/) and the Instagram Post

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/?) as

shared by the complainant and observed that the

advertiser had declared contest to reward the

‘Cultural Face of the Year’. As per the post, the

participants had to post their photo dressing in

respective colour clothes based on the colour

representing the 9 days of Navratri as per the

common religious belief with a # specified by the

advertiser having their brand name.

The Advertiser had declared a cash award of INR

15,001 for the 1st Winner. The CCC observed the

series of Instagram, Facebook posts, and comments

in light of the complainant’s grievance. The sequence

explained by complainant in the complaint was noted

by the CCC. The Complainant was declared as

winner and advertiser had posted her to be the top

winner on their Instagram and Facebook page. As

explained by the complainant on receiving post of

allegation for fake likes she made alteration in her

post and removed the tag. Eventually the advertiser

disqualified her due to this and did not reward her

with the cash prize as committed. The CCC felt that

the advertiser’s intention to pay the reward to the

winning contestant was dubious.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the `#Navratri

#MeraCulture MeraPride’ contest promoted in the

advertisement was not substantiated, is misleading by

omission and exaggeration, and is likely to lead to


The Instagram and the Facebook Posts contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4, I.5 and I.5 (f) of the ASCI Code.


4. OC 2012-C.2331 Berger Paints India Ltd.(*)

(Berger Silk Breathe Easy)

MEDIUM: Website advertisement

(https://www.bergerpaints.com/)


Claim objected to:

“Protects from COVID Virus – 99% Effective

Against COVID-19 Virus”

Complaint:

“The Berger Paint Company in their Advertisement is

mentioning that its protects from Corona Virus and

the same is approved by the Indian Medical

Association. India is facing the worst situation

because of the Covid -19 Virus. In such a situation, a

reputed company like Berger Paint is claiming that

their products protects from CoronaVirus. Even the

Indian Medical Association denied the claim of the

Berger Company. We have lost more than 1.5 Lakh

people in India because of the Corona. The above

mentioned creates ruckus in the Society.

Advertisement is misleading the society and at the

same time it is against the ASCI code and Consumer

Protection Act. Misleading the society on such a

serious issue is a criminal offense. Berger paint

company is advertising their

product (Protects from Corona Virus). It is illegal to

make such baseless remark. It is also a fraud with the

customer. They are one of the reputed company in

the market. Their action can put millions of lives at

stake. My humble submission before you to kindly

take strict action against the company and direct the

company to withdraw the Advertisement.

With reference to the Indian Medical Association

claim, I am attaching the screenshot of the webportal

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/?igshid=1nwo8o60w7rv8

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/?igshid=1nwo8o60w7rv8

https://www.facebook.com/899760913380024/posts/3575074792515276/

https://www.facebook.com/899760913380024/posts/3575074792515276/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHjzTErIn_o/


(

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/features/to

othbrush-paint-ac-plywood-can-all-protect-against-

covid-if-you-believe-these-ads/538891/%3famp)

Secondly, my ground of objection are as follows -

1. They have mentioned on their website (Berger

paint) that it protects from corona virus.

There is no evidence of their claim. It can create huge

problems in the society as the claims are baseless.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser in their response stated that “These tests

on the features claimed were carried out by their

R&D Lab

(where possible) and also by independent and

accredited laboratories. They have data to show

efficiency of the coating against SARS-CoV-2 by

multiple recognized laboratories of BSL2 and BSL3

showing efficacy.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided Test

Reports on Anti-Viral efficacy, Test Reports on Anti-

SARS CoV-2 efficacy, Declaration of due diligence

from Celebrity.



technical expert of ASCI. The CCC viewed the

website advertisement

(https://www.bergerpaints.com/) and considered the



The CCC observed that the claim was qualified via

disclaimer to mention that “99% efficiency within 30

minutes of treatment as per study done by Rajiv

Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology (Government of

India certified laboratory).” The CCC noted that

the efficacy study for the product, Berger Silk

Breathe Easy was done at Rajiv Gandhi Centre for

Biotechnology (RGCB) with SARS-CoV-2

(COVID19) isolate. The study result concluded that

SARS-CoV-2 specific RNA (E&S target gene) was

not detected (Berger Silk Breathe Easy) after 30

minutes of treatment. However, this is not the

standard testing protocol for demonstrating the

antiviral/antimicrobial activity/efficacy of products

on surfaces etc. Subsequently, the additional data

submitted of studies carried out at IMTECH,

Chandigarh, supported the advertiser’s claim about

efficacy against Covid 19 viruses. The CCC

deliberated on various aspects like the time span for

which the protection would last, the type of room in

which the testing was done, period for which

bacteria/ virus have to be in contact with the paint to

be neutralised etc. It was seen that there was no

clarifications provided on what would happen to the

room air as typically these are virsus carried in

aerosol droplets which are present in the air therefore

the extent to which the wall paint could remove what

is in the air would be crucial from a consumer’s point

of view to understand. These depend on many

factors as to what would be the agitation in the room,

and the dead spots present in the room.

In the absence of this data, the CCC concluded that

the claim, “Protects from COVID Virus* – 99%

Effective Against COVID-19 Virus” was

inadequately substantiated. The claim of “Protects

from COVID Virus*” is misleading to normal

consumer who may not have bandwidth to

understand the contention of the claim as explained

by the advertiser. Given the current

pandemic situation, the claim is likely to mislead

consumers that the product offers protection from

Coronavirus, and is likely to lead to widespread


Website advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4


UPHELD

For the objection raised against the celebrity

endorsing the product, the CCC observed that the

advertiser has submitted evidence that the celebrity

(Kareena Kapoor Khan) has done due diligence and

that she confirms all the claims made in the

advertisement. This complaint was NOT UPHELD

NAMS Complaints

5. @ 2011-C.1979 Prakash Engineering

Industries – Stickall Adhesive

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Nasik Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Nashik's Best Branded Adhesive”



in addressing the objection raised in the complaint.




https://www.bergerpaints.com/


advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claim

with the required supporting data. The advertiser was

also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the

ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail nor did

they submit their written response. The Consumer





that advertiser is dealing in adhesive solutions, and is

claiming their product to be “Nashik's Best Branded

Adhesive”.




“Nashik's Best Branded Adhesive” was not


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s,

adhesive brand versus other adhesive brands in

Nashik, to prove that they are better than the rest, nor

the claim was backed by a third-party validation.




Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


6. @ 2011-C.1702 Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Pvt

Ltd

MEDIUM: Eenadu(*), Warangal Edition, Main

Issue (Telugu) (24.08.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's Biggest Diagnostic Centre”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:




to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint.

Advertiser replied post due date seeking for a telecon

with the ASCI Secretariat to discuss and seek further

guidance on the complaint. However, the advertiser

did not avail the telecon which was offered to them.


the print advertisement and observed that the

advertiser is claiming their diagnostic centre to be the

biggest in India. In the absence of claim support

data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's

Biggest Diagnostic Centre” was not substantiated


diagnostic centre versus other similar diagnostic

centre’s in India, to prove that they are bigger than all

the rest, nor the claim was backed by an independent


The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The print



7. @ 2011-C.2019 The JawaharVidyalaya

Society Group-Aligarh College of Engineering

& Technology /Aligrah College of Pharmacy)

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Aligarh Edition, Main

Issue(English), (04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ranked No.1-Achieved First Rank in Academics in

Aligarh Region”






modifying or withdrawing the claim objected to in the




ASCI Secretariat. The Consumer Complaints Council



complaint.

The CCC viewed the print advertisement and observed

that the advertiser’s college is providing courses such

as MBA, MCA, BBA, BCA, B.Tech, and other

courses. They have claimed to have achieved first rank

in Academics in Aligarh Region.Upon careful



that the claim, “Ranked No.1-Achieved First Rank in

Academics in Aligarh Region” was not substantiated

with copy of the award/ranking certificate, details of




institutes/colleges in Aligarh region that were part of


about the ranking body. The source for the claim was

not mentioned in the advertisement.






as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI




was UPHELD.

8. @ 2011-C.2020 Doon Business School,

Dehradun

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Nainital Edition,



Claim objected to:

“We are not only ranked as Top Management

College now we are also ranked No.1 in Mass

Communication in Uttarakhand”
















courses such as MA Mass Comm, BA (Hons.) Mass

Comm, PGDM, MBA, BBA, BCA, and other

courses. They have claimed to be ranked as a top

management college and No.1 in Mass

Communication in Uttarakhand by The Week

Magazine.



CCC concluded that the claim, “We are not only

ranked as Top Management College now we are also

ranked No.1 in Mass Communication in

Uttarakhand” was not substantiated with copy of the

award/ ranking certificate, details of the process for

selection for ranking, criteria for granting the ranks,


questionnaires used, names of other Management

institutes/ colleges in Uttarakhand that were part of


about the ranking body. The source for the claim was

not indicated in the advertisement









was UPHELD.

9. @ 2011-C.2021 GNIOT Group of Institutions-

Greater Noida Institute of Technology

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*),New Delhi Edition,

Supplement JagranCity(*),(English), (05.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“GNIOT Ranked AAA-India's Best Engg Colleges

2020 (Issued By Careers 360)”
















courses such as B.Tech, M.Tech, PGDM, MBA,

MCA, BBA, BCA, B.Com and integrated BBA along

with MBA. The advertiser has claimed that it is

`ranked AAA as India's Best Engg Colleges 2020 by

Careers 360’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “GNIOT Ranked

AAA-India's Best Engg Colleges 2020 (Issued By

Careers 360)” was not substantiated with copy of the

award/ ranking certificate, details of the process for

selection for ranking, criteria for granting the ranks,


questionnaires used, names of other Engineering

institutes/ colleges in India that were part of the

survey, the outcome of the survey. The source for the

claim was not indicated in the advertisement










was UPHELD.

10. @ 2011-C.2023 NSHM Knowledge Campus-

NSHM School of Media & Communication

MEDIUM: EP The Telegraph, Kolkata Edition, The

Telegraph T2 Review,(English), (04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ranked No.1 Media institute in Eastern India-India

Today Survey”
















courses such as B.Sc. (Film and Television), B.Sc. in

Media Science, M.Sc. (Digital Films) and M.Sc. in

Media Science. The advertiser’s institute has claimed

that it is `ranked as No.1 Media institute in Eastern

India as per India Today Survey’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked No.1 Media

institute in Eastern India-India Today Survey” was

not substantiated with copy of the award/ ranking

certificate, details of the process for selection for

ranking, criteria for granting the ranks, survey


used, names of other Media institutes/ colleges in

Eastern India that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey. The source for the claim was







as well as Chapters I.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

11. @ 2011-C.2024 NSHM Knowledge Campus-

NSHM School of Tourism& Hotel

Management

MEDIUM: EP The Telegraph, Kolkata Edition, The

Telegraph T2 Review (English), (06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Ranked No.1 in the East and among top 10 Hotel

Management Colleges in India -The Week,2019’’
















courses such as B.Sc. (Culinary Science), BTTM

(Bachelor in Travel & Tourism Management), M.Sc.

(Hospitality Management) and B.Sc. in Hospitality

and Hotel Administration. The advertiser has claimed

that it is `ranked as No.1 in the East and among top

10 Hotel Management Colleges in India by The

Week Magazine, 2019’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Ranked No.1 in the

East and among top 10 Hotel Management Colleges

in India -The Week, 2019’’ was not substantiated

with copy of the award/ ranking certificate, details of




Hotel Management institutes/ colleges in India that

were part of the survey, and the outcome of the

survey. The source for the claim was not indicated in

the advertisement










was UPHELD.

12. @ 2011-C.2027 Swamy Ayyappan

Educational Trust-MIT College of Health

Sciences

MEDIUM: EP Dinakaran, Trichy Edition, Main

Issue,(Tamil), (20.09.2020)


Claim objected to

“100% Government Job Opportunity after studying”














complaint.



two-year Diploma in ANM for females and Health

Inspector for male candidates and is assuring

Government job opportunity.




job opportunity to their students, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for a “100% Government

Job Opportunity after studying” claim. There cannot

be a percentage assigned to any opportunity claim

such as 40% or 80% opportunity. The use of “100%”

as a descriptor in the claim is misleading by

implication and is likely to lead to grave and






13. @ 2011-C.2030 Gyan Guru Academy-Edu

Mantra

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran(*),Bareilly Edition,

Main Issue,( Hindi), (18.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Be it for a preparation of NEET or IIT-JEE, we have

brought Best Faculties of Kota and Delhi to your own

city”
















that the advertiser is running coaching classes for

imparting coaching for students preparing for NEET

and IIT- JEE.



advertiser, the CCC settled that the claim, “Be it for a

preparation of NEET or IIT-JEE, we have brought

Best Faculties of Kota and Delhi to your own city”



class Faculty versus Faculty of other such coaching

classes, to prove that their Faculties are better than

the rest in Kota and Delhi, nor the claim was backed

by a third-party validation.



students. The Print advertisement contravened

Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and



UPHELD.

14. @ 2011-C.2031 Vidyadhish Vidyasankul


Edition, Main Issue, (Gujarati) (13.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Institution with the Best Success Ratio in Bhavnagar

means... VDVS”

















that the advertiser is providing coaching for JEE-

Main exams.




“Institution with the Best Success Ratio in Bhavnagar

means... VDVS” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s institute’s versus other

institutes in Bhavnagar, to prove that their success

ratio is better than the rest in JEE-Main (2020)

exams, nor the claim was backed by a third-party

validation.



students. The print advertisement contravened




UPHELD.

15. @ 2011-C.2032 JVEM Education(P)Ltd.-

GyanKuteer

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*),

SikarEdition,Main Issue,(Hindi), (01.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“For Sure Selection only…Gyan Kuteer”

















Pre-Foundation, Foundation, Target, IIT-JEE, NEET,

NTSE, NDA exams. The CCC also observed that the

advertiser is assuring selection in respective exams to

their students.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “For

Sure Selection only…Gyan Kuteer” was not

substantiated with supporting evidence of their

students who were selected for the courses claimed,

with their contact numbers for independent

verification by ASCI, nor the claim was backed by a








UPHELD.

16. @ 2011-C.2033 Yuvodaya Advanced Classes

MEDIUM: Sambad, Sambalpur Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“India's Highest Success Rate@ NEET-2020 (75 out

of 280)”
















that advertiser is running coaching classes for

students preparing of IIT- JEE/ Medical and NEET

etc.




advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's

Highest Success Rate@ NEET-2020 (75 out of 280)”


data of the advertiser’s classes versus other similar

classes in India providing coaching in similar field, to

prove that their success rate is higher than the rest for

NEET 2020, nor the claim was backed by a third-

party validation.




Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and



UPHELD.

17. @ 2011-C.2034 Mysore Maharaja Institute of

Higher Education-GEMS B School

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Bangalore Edition,

Supplement, Education Times, (English),

(05.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Awarded the Most preferred B-School in South

India 2019 by ASSOCHAM India

2. Awarded the Most Preferred B School for

Placements 2020 by ASSOCHAM India

2. Awarded the Most Innovative B School in South

India at the Times Business Awards 2020.
















that advertiser’s institute is providing coaching for

Industry synergised MBA, MBA in healthcare

management & hospital administration, MBA in

Hospitality & Travel Tourism, MBA in Event

Management, British MBA.




“Awarded the Most preferred B-School in South

India 2019 by ASSOCHAM India”, “Awarded the

Most Preferred B School for Placements 2020 by

ASSOCHAM India”, and “Awarded the Most

Innovative B School in South India at the Times

Business Awards 2020”, were not substantiated with

copy of the award certificates, details of the process

for awards selection, criteria for granting the awards,


questionnaires used, names of other MBA schools/

institutions in South India that were part of the


the awarding body. The source for the claims was




minds of consumers especially students. The print



as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

18. @ 2011-C.2035 The Sacred Heart College

Society- Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen

Kaushalya Yojana

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Vellore Edition,

Main Issue,(Tamil), (28.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Job Opportunity in the relevant private

sector upon completion of three months of Skill

Development Training

2. 100% Job Opportunity




complaint. Given the nature of the claims, the










complaint.

https://gemsbschool.com/2019/02/21/most-preferred-b-school-of-the-year-in-south-india/






observed that the advertiser’s college is offering Skill

development training programme for rural youth and

is assuring job opportunity in the relevant private

sector upon completion of three months of Skill

Development Training.




job opportunity to their students, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “100% Job Opportunity

in the relevant private sector upon completion of

three months of Skill Development Training” and

“100% Job Opportunity” claims. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any opportunity claim such as

40% or 80% opportunity. The use of “100%” as a

descriptor in the claims is misleading by implication

and is likely to lead to grave and widespread






19. @ 2011-C.2036 The Heritage Group of

Institutions-Heritage Business School

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*),Jamshedpur

Edition, Main Issue,( English), (04.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Most Preferred B-School of the Year East” in

2020 by ASSOCHAM India

2. Best Education Brands 2020 by The Economic

Times
















that the advertiser has made the claims on the basis of

the awards granted to their institute by ASSOCHAM

India and The Economic Times.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Most

Preferred B-School of the Year East in 2020 by

ASSOCHAM India” and “Best Education Brands

2020 by The Economic Times” were not

substantiated with copy of the award certificates,

details of the process for awards selection, criteria for

granting the awards, survey methodology, parameters


schools / institutions that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and details about the

awarding body. The source for the claims was not

indicated in the advertisement. The claims are



consumers especially students. The print



as well as Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

20. @ 2011-C.2037 Sage University, Indore-Sage

Institute of Engineering & Technology (SIRT)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*),Bhopal Edition, Main

Issue,( English), (02.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Competition Success Review 1st Law School in

Central India

2. DL Ranked Best Institute of Engineering

&Technology with AAAA+

3. Sage Group-Sage University Bhopal, Indore and

SIRT College Bhopal has turned out to be the

most preferred destinations for higher studies to

the students across India

















that the advertiser’s institute is providing courses in

the field of science, commerce, Management studies,

design, agriculture etc.




“Competition Success Review 1st Law School in

Central India” and “DL Ranked Best Institute of

Engineering &Technology with AAAA+” were not





schools / institutions that were part of the survey, the




Claim, “Sage Group-Sage University Bhopal, Indore

and SIRT College Bhopal has turned out to be the

most preferred destinations for higher studies to the

students across India” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s college / university versus

other institutes/universities in India, to prove that

they are most preferred for higher studies than all the

rest. The claim was also not backed by a third-party

validation.



minds of consumers especially students. The print



as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI



was UPHELD.

21. @ 2011-C.2038 FIITJEE Limited

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan Times(*), New Delhi

Edition, Main Issue,

(English), (06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“FIITJEE has been Ranked India's Number 1

coaching institute for the 2nd consecutive year (for

engineering entrance examinations) by one of the

most widely acclaimed Magazines of the country-

INDIA TODAY”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “Fiitjee has been ranked No. 1

again by INDIA TODAY-MDRA survey for

Engineering Entrance examinations.”


of the India Today report.



advertiser’s response with the supporting data

provided by them. The CCC reviewed the India

Today-MDRA survey report published in India

Today of September 7, 2020 issue and observed that

under the section `Ranks and Scores of Coaching

Institutes for JEE’, in the overall rank 2020, the

advertiser’ institute was listed as No.1 with a total

score of 995.3 out of 1000. This proved that they

were in leadership position (No.1) for ranking than

all the other institutes that were part of the survey.

The data also showed that they were ranked No.1 in

2019 also.



claim, “FIITJEE has been Ranked India's Number 1

coaching institute for the 2nd consecutive year (for

engineering entrance examinations) by one of the

most widely acclaimed Magazines of the country-

INDIA TODAY” was substantiated. The print

advertisement is not in contravention of Chapter I of

the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, and ASCI


and Programs. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

22. @ 2011-C.2142 Extra Innings Heart Care

Center

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Nasik Edition, Supplement

Hello Nasik (Marathi) (29.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Safest Treatment Procedure to Avoid the

Problems of High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and

Angioplasty/ Bypass in the Future”
















The advertiser had a heart care centre and was

providing treatment for health Problems of High

Blood Pressure, Diabetes and Angioplasty/ Bypass

etc.


observed that the advertiser is promoting treatment

for health problems of High Blood Pressure,

Diabetes, and Angioplasty/ Bypass etc. However, the

advertiser did not provide any details of the treatment







Safest Treatment Procedure to Avoid the Problems of

High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and Angioplasty/

Bypass in the Future” was not substantiated with any

supporting clinical evidence and treatment efficacy

data. Also, the advertiser did not provide any market

survey data or verifiable comparative data of the

advertiser’s treatment procedure versus other clinic’s

treatment procedure for curing claimed diseases, to

prove that their treatment procedure is safest than all

the rest. The claim was not backed by a third party



the minds of consumers particularly patients

suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes and

heart problems. The print advertisement contravened



23. @ 2011-C.2143 Geetanjali Hospital (GMCH)




Claim objected to:

“South Rajasthan's Largest and Experienced Cardiac

Science Team”
















that the advertiser is offering treatment for

angioplasty, ball surgery, pacemaker implant, bypass

surgery, etc



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “South

Rajasthan's Largest and Experienced Cardiac Science

Team” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital versus

other hospitals in South Rajasthan, to prove that their

cardiac science team is larger and experienced than

all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third-party

validation.



consumers especially those suffering from any such

ailments. The print advertisement contravened



24. @ 2011-C.2144 Grow Up - Online Grocery

Delivery

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jodhpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Best Quality Products”

















that advertiser is promoting its online grocery

delivery store.




Quality Products” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s products verses other products

of such other grocery stores, to prove that the quality

of their products is better than the rest, nor the claim

was backed by a third-party validation.






25. @ 2011-C.2145 Hope NICU

MEDIUM: Saurashtrav Samachar(*), Bhvanagar

Edition, Main Issue (Gujarati) (27.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Gujarat's Largest And Bhavnagar's First 30 Bed

NICU.

2. Gujarat's Largest Team of Pediatricians.


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Dainik

Bhaskar Group) for their assistance in providing the

contact details of the advertiser, or to forward the

complaint to the advertiser. The Consumer


was received from the advertiser or from the

concerned media prior to the due date for this

complaint.


that the advertiser is promoting treatment and care for

new borns.




“Gujarat's Largest And Bhavnagar's First 30 Bed

NICU” and “Gujarat's Largest Team of

Paediatricians” were not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s treatment centre

versus other similar treatment centres, to prove that

they are larger in Gujarat and First in Bhavnagar than

the rest, and their Team of Paediatricians is larger

than the rest in Gujarat. The claims were also not

backed by a third-party validation.




contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI


26. @ 2011-C.2146 Jansa Solar Solutions Pvt Ltd




Claim objected to:

“Leadership award Winner from 94.3 MyFm”
















that the advertiser’s organization is in the business of

solar rooftops. The CCC observed that the advertiser

has made the claim on the basis of winning a

leadership award from 94.3 MyFm.




“Leadership award Winner from 94.3 MyFm” was

not substantiated with copy of the award certificate,




companies providing solar rooftops that were part of

the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details

of the awarding body. The source for the claim was




of the ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in advertisements. This complaint

was UPHELD.

27. @ 2011-C.2147 Kanba Hospital




Claims objected to:

1. Most Emerging Hospital in East Ahmedabad 2018


2. Best Ortho-Spine Surgery Hospital in Ahmedabad

2019

3. Pioneer of Gujarat 2020
















that advertiser is providing treatment for knee and hip

pain, back pain, tuberculosis, child neurosurgery,

orthopaedic surgery etc.




Emerging Hospital in East Ahmedabad 2018”, “Best

Ortho-Spine Surgery Hospital in Ahmedabad 2019”

and “Pioneer of Gujarat 2020” were not substantiated

with copy of the award certificates, details of the

process for awards selection, criteria for granting the

awards, survey methodology, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other similar hospitals

in Ahmedabad and Gujarat that were part of the


the awarding body. The source for the claims was





contravened Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the


28. @ 2011-C.2148 Karnal Medical Centre (Dr.

Sanjay Khanna)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Panipat Edition,

Supplement Jagran City (Hindi) (04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Awarded as Best ENT Specialist in Delhi and NCR”
















that the advertiser is providing treatment for

deafness, and is claiming to be awarded as `Best ENT

Specialist in Delhi and NCR’.




“Awarded as Best ENT Specialist in Delhi and NCR”





other similar Medical centres providing treatment for

deafness in Delhi and NCR that were part of the

survey, the outcome of the survey, and details of the






Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and



29. @ 2011-C.2149 Malhotra Mother & Child

Hospital (Dr. Sona Malhotra)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Panipat Edition,

Supplement Jagran City (Hindi) (04.10.2020)

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

Claim objected to:

“Let’s Start your Life Here Find the Best

Gynecologist”

















that advertiser is offering treatment for child delivery,

pregnancy care, child care, etc.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Let’s

Start your Life Here Find the Best Gynaecologist”



hospital versus other similar hospitals providing

similar treatment, to prove that their Gynaecologist is

better than the rest, nor the claim was backed by a







30. @ 2011-C.2150 Maxlife Diagnostic &

Research Centre (Dr. Sanjeev Kumar)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Bhagalpur Edition,

Main Issue(Hindi) (02.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Bihar's Best Diagnostics and Research Centre in

your Service since 12 Years”
















that advertiser is offering complete health check up

facilities.




“Bihar's Best Diagnostics and Research Centre in

your Service since 12 Years” was not substantiated


comparative data on year on year basis since the last

12 years as claimed, of the advertiser’s Diagnostics

and Research Centre, versus other such Diagnostics

and Research Centres in Bihar, to prove that they are








31. @ 2011-C.2151 Narnolia Financial Advisors

Limited/ Motilal Oswal Commodities Broker

Pvt. Ltd

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Bhagalpur Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. Most Consistent Portfolio Manager of the Country

2018, 2019 (BSE Tefla's)

2. India's Most Promising Brand 2017 by WCRC

3. NSDL- Best Performer in Account Growth Rate
















observed that the Advertiser is a SEBI registered

Stock Broker, depository participant, Merchant

banker, Research Analyst etc. The CCC noted that

the advertiser is claiming to be awarded with titles as

claimed.




Consistent Portfolio Manager of the Country 2018,

2019 (BSE Tefla's)”, “India's Most Promising Brand

2017 by WCRC” and “NSDL- Best Performer in

Account Growth Rate” were not substantiated with





questionnaires used, names of similar financial

advisors/brokers in India that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey, and the details of the






contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of


was UPHELD.

32. @ 2011-C.2152 Narnolia Financial Advisors

Limited/ Motilal Oswal Commodities Broker

Pvt. Ltd

MEDIUM: Prabhat Khabar, Patna Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. Largest Broker of the East

2. Largest & Most Experienced Team in the East
















that advertisers - Narnolia Financial Advisors and

Motilal Oswal Commodities Broker through their

strategic partnership provided their clients research,

advisory and brokerage services and related

investment services.




“Largest Broker of the East” and “Largest & Most

Experienced Team in the East” were not


advertiser’s entities and their team versus similar

financial advisors/brokers and their teams, in the

East, to prove that they are larger and their team is

larger and more experienced than all the rest. The

claims were also not backed by a third-party

validation.






33. @ 2011-C.2153 New Life Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Varanasi Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Option for Painless Delivery”
















observed that advertiser is providing service/care for

maternity, genecology, pregnancy etc. They have

offered an `option for painless delivery’ as one of the

facilities being provided by them.

The advertiser did not provide any details of the

treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the

medicines used for treatment of painless delivery and

their approval status by the regulatory authorities.




“Option for painless delivery” was not substantiated

with any supporting clinical evidence and treatment

efficacy data to prove that women delivered children

without any other intervention such as pain killers/

local anaesthesia or epidural injections. The claim

omits the modalities of the delivery procedure. The



consumers particularly pregnant women. The print

advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5



34. @ 2011-C.2154 Nuetech Solar Systems Pvt.

Ltd (Nuetech Solar Water Heater)

MEDIUM: Prajavani, Bangalore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Best Premier Solar Brand in India”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a solar

water heater claiming it to be the `Best Premier Solar

Brand in India’.




Premier Solar Brand in India” was not substantiated


comparative data of the advertiser’s brand verses

other solar water heater brands in India, to prove that

their brand is better than the others, nor the claim was







35. @ 2011-C.2155 Omaxe Ltd Omaxe Chandni

Chowk (Jewel Court)

MEDIUM: Navbharat Times(*), New Delhi Edition,

Supplement Delhi Times (English) (14.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's BIGGEST Jewellery Hub is here!”















observed that the advertiser is in the business of real

estate and is providing wholesale/ retail shops for

selling Jewellery.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India's BIGGEST

Jewellery Hub is here!” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser versus

other similar companies in India, to prove that the

advertiser’s jewellery hub is bigger than the others.

The claim was also not backed by a third-party

validation.






36. @ 2011-C.2156 Aastha Old Age Hospital

MEDIUM: Navbharat Times(*), Lucknow Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Recipient VayoshreshthaSamman by Hon. President

of India for Outstanding Services in the Field of

Ageing & Geriatrics”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “the advertisement was printed

on the basis of the said Honour which was awarded

to the Aastha Centre by the Hon'ble President of

India at New Delhi. The Ministry of Social Justice

and Empowerment, Government of India was pleased

to confer, the "Vayoshreshtha Samman for the Best


Institution for providing services to the Senior

Citizens and Awareness Generation" for the year

2016 on Aastha Centre.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided a

photograph of the award function.




and copy of any financial transaction involved for

participating and/or receiving such award. In

response to this query, the advertiser reverted that

“the award was advertised by the Ministry of Social

justice and empowerment, GOI, New Delhi all across

the country, and there were several applicants, and

strict scrutiny, as the ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment is a Government body they did not

share with them how the selection for award was

done. But as the outcome of their application that

they had applied for the above award, they received a

letter dated 22nd sep 2016 from Joint Secretary,

Government of India. Yes there was a financial

transaction of Rs. 5.0 lacks.”

Advertiser provided a copy of letter of September

2016 from Government of India inviting the

advertiser for the award ceremony.




advertiser has made the said claim on the basis of the

award granted to their centre/hospital by The

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Government of India in October 2016. The award

was given to the advertiser for providing services to

the senior citizens and awareness generation.


award certificate. Also, the claim was not qualified

to mention the source and year of the award. The

CCC was of the view that the advertiser needs to

mention the year of award in the advertisement since

the award was facilitated for their outstanding

services during that relevant period in which it was

awarded.

Based on these observations, by majority, the CCC

concluded that though the claim, “Recipient

Vayoshreshtha Samman by Hon. President of India

for Outstanding Services in the Field of Ageing &

Geriatrics”, was not objectionable, the year and the


advertisement. The advertisement contravened ASCI


Advertisements as well as Chapter I.2 of the ASCI

Code (“Where advertising claims are expressly stated

to be based on or supported by independent research

or assessment, the source and date of this should be

indicated in the advertisement.”). This complaint

was UPHELD.

37. @ 2011-C.2157 Pratibha Hospital & Heart

Care Centre

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Satara Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. Solve your Heart Complications and Give the Best

Treatment

2. The Best Heart Care Centre of Satara District
















that advertiser’s hospital is providing treatment for

heart problems / diseases.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Solve

your Heart Complications and Give the Best

Treatment” and “The Best Heart Care Centre of

Satara District” were not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s hospital/heart care centre

versus similar hospitals/heart care centres in Satara

District, to prove that their hospital and their

treatment provided is better than all the rest. The

claims were also not backed by a third-party

validation. The claims are misleading by





38. @ 2011-C.2158 Reddys Medicare

MEDIUM: Prabhat Khabar, Deoghar Edition, Main



Claim objected to:


“India's Most Trusted and Quality Certified Patho

Lab”
















that the advertiser’s Lab is providing COVID-19

RTPCR test and is claiming to be `India's Most

Trusted and Quality Certified Pathology Laboratory’.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “India's

Most Trusted and Quality Certified Patho Lab” was



pathology laboratory, versus other such pathology

laboratories in India, to prove that their lab is more

trusted than the others, nor the claim was backed by a

third-party validation. The source for the claim was





Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


39. @ 2011-C.2159 Gaurav Enterprises - Baliraja

Atta Chakki

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Kolhapur Edition,

Supplement Hello Kolhapur (Marathi) (03.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Choice of all Housewives”















observed that the advertiser is promoting flour mill

machine as well as other products like water purifier,

gas chimney, mixer etc. The advertisement claimed

that the advertiser’s product (Baliraja Atta Chakki) is

the `No. 1 choice of all Housewives’.



CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “No.1

Choice of all Housewives” was not substantiated with


product versus similar atta chakki brands, to prove

that their product is in leadership position (No.1)

than the others. The claim was also not backed by a

third-party validation. The claim is misleading by





40. @ 2011-C.2160 Shiva Hospital The Multi

Speciality Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Gorakhpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Painless Delivery”
















that the advertiser is providing treatment for various

diseases like kidney stone, pregnancy and child

delivery, Orthopaedic care, etc. They have

mentioned `painless delivery’ to be one of the

treatment facilities provided by them.



any details of the treatment procedure, nor any details

regarding the medicines used for treatment for

painless delivery, and their approval status by the

regulatory authorities.




“painless delivery” was not substantiated with


data, to prove that women were delivered without

any other intervention such as pain killers/ local

anaesthesia or epidural injections. The claim omits

the modalities of the delivery procedure. The claim



consumers particularly pregnant women.


1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

41. @ 2011-C.2162 Alroz Aviation

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://airliners.net)

(English) (05.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"Government Approved Course with 100%

Placement Guarantee”
















(http://airliners.net) and observed that the advertiser

is guaranteeing placement to their students on

completion of their courses. Upon careful



the claim, "Government Approved Course with 100%

Placement Guarantee” was not substantiated with





placed through their institute in relevant industry

sector on completion of their courses, their








placed class.










42. @ 2011-C.2163 Asian Business School


(http://forbes.com) (English) (09.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser in their response stated that “the said CTC

offer of INR 17.33 (LPA) was offered by one of their

reputed recruiter "KhimjiRamdas Group" for

Marketing specialization students associated with

them since year 2018 till date. Since inception

Summer internships are offered to all the students at

the end of first year and opportunities for short term

skilled based projects are offered throughout the

year. They are associated with 300 plus recruiters

offering internship, project and career opportunities

to their students as per their requirement and hiring

cycle. In the best of scenario they are able to place

all their students successfully barring a very few

countable numbers (2%-3%) wherein placement

assistance is offered to students unless placed and a

student is passed out from the campus.” Advertiser

further agreed to add a disclaimer for the claim.



Khimji Ramdas pdf and (2) CTC Break-up- Campus

Recruitment pdf

This response being inadequate, ASCI Secretariat

informed the advertiser that an addition of a

disclaimer for the claim made would not be

appropriate, as the claim would require supporting

evidence of their students who were provided

placements. They were also offered an option of IR

if they agreed to withdraw or modify the claim. As

the advertiser did make any further submissions, the

advertiser’s earlier response was placed before the

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) for their

deliberations.


considered the advertiser’s response which had only

assertions about their claim. The CCC observed that

the advertiser did not provide authentic supporting





schools/institute in relevant industries on completion

of their courses, their appointment letters, list of







number of students passing out from the placed

class.


concluded the claim, “100% Placement” was not


exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or


The advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and

I.5 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines for


Programs, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

43. @ 2011-C.2166 Bharath Institute of Higher

Education and Research


(http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com) (English)

(02.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com) and observed

that the advertiser’s institute is claiming that it

provides placement assistance to their students.






numerical is not relevant for “Placement Assistance”










44. @ 2011-C.2170 Brandveda Digital Marketing

Institute

MEDIUM: Digital Display (hhttp://loksatta.com)

(English) (13.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

"We Brandveda Promises to Give you 100% Job

Placement Assistance”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:









The advertiser replied that their team is looking into

the complaint and they would like to discuss the


complaint via telecon with the ASCI Secretariat.

However, the advertiser did not avail the option of

telecon nor did they submit their response prior to the




(hhttp://loksatta.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is offering digital marketing

courses and is promising to give job placement





job placement assistance to their students for getting

jobs in relevant industries, the use of 100% numerical

is not relevant for "We Brandveda Promises to Give

you 100% Job Placement Assistance” claim. There








Programs, as well as Chapters 1.4 and 1.5 of the


45. @ 2011-C.2181 Gandhi Institute of Hotel

Management

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://sanfoundry.com)

(English) (14.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://sanfoundry.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing BBA and MBA

courses and is claiming that it provides placement







100% numerical is not relevant for “Placement











46. @ 2011-C.2184 Image Infotainment Ltd -

ICAT Design & Media College

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://jagranjosh.com)

(English) (15.09.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


(http://jagranjosh.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s college is providing coaching for B.com

(H) in Accounts and Finance, and is claiming that it

provides placement assistance to their students.


















47. @ 2011-C.2199 Subzfresh – SubZfresh.com


Supplement Times of Chandigarh (English)

(30.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. All Products of Best Quality, Especially Garlic,

Pomegranates and Apples

2. Here you will get the best products at the right

price saving your time, money and effort
















that advertiser is promoting online platform which

provides a large variety of fruits and vegetables with

home delivery services.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “All

Products of Best Quality, Especially Garlic,

Pomegranates and Apples” and “Here you will get

the best products at the right price saving your time,

money and effort” were not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s online store versus other

online platforms providing similar products and

services, to prove that the products offered by the

advertiser are of better quality, and that their products

are better than the rest. The claims were also not

backed by a third-party validation. The claims are






48. @ 2011-C.2200 Tata Motors Ltd(*) – Tata

Tigor

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar, Satna Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (29.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's Safest Sedan”
















that advertiser is promoting their four wheeler car

(Tata Tigor) claiming it to be `India's Safest Sedan’.



advertiser, the CCC settled that the claim, “India's

Safest Sedan” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s car brand versus

other car brands in India, to prove that their Sedan is

safer than the others, nor the claim was backed by a







49. @ 2011-C.2201 Kalani Group (Treasure

Fantasy)

MEDIUM: EP Nai Duniya, Indore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“No.1 Township in Western Region of Indore”

















estate and is promoting `Teasure Fantasy’ township

claiming it to be the `No. 1 Township in Western

region of Indore’.



CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “No.1

Township in Western Region of Indore” was not

substantiated with verifiable comparative data, of the

advertiser’s township versus similar townships of

other real estate developers in western region of

Indore, to prove that their township project is in

leadership position (No.1) than the others. The claim

was also not backed by a third-party validation.






50. @ 2011-C.2202 Frontfoot Sports Management

Pvt. Ltd-Trophykart

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Tirchy Edition,

Supplement Times Business Awards(English)

(30.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's First and Biggest Online Store for Procuring

the Trophies Awards and Corporate Gifts”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:















platform for procuring gifts, trophies, sports specific

trophies and awards.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India's First and

Biggest Online Store for Procuring the Trophies

Awards and Corporate Gifts” was not substantiated

with verifiable comparative data, of the advertiser’s

online store versus similar online stores in India

providing similar products, to prove that they are first

and biggest Online Store than the others. The claim

was also not backed by a third-party validation. The






51. @ 2011-C.2204 Sankar Kartik Netralaya (Dr

Manish Saxena & Dr Neha Saxena)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Kanpur Edition,

Main issue(Hindi) (29.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Freedom from Glaucoma”















observed that the advertiser’s eye centre is providing

treatment for Glaucoma. However, the advertiser did

not provide any details of the treatment procedure,

nor any details regarding the medicines used for

treatment of Glaucoma, and their approval status by

the regulatory authorities.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Freedom from

Glaucoma” was not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence and treatment efficacy data of their

patients who were successfully treated for Glaucoma.




consumers especially those suffering from Glaucoma.



UPHELD.

52. @ 2011-C.2205 Pulse Super Speciality

Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Prabhat Khabar, Ranchi Edition,

Main issue (Hindi) (05.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“First Choice of Doctors – Pulse Hospital”















observed that the advertiser is claiming their hospital

to be the first choice of Doctors. Upon careful



that the claim, “First Choice of Doctors-Pulse

Hospital” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital and

other similar hospitals, to prove they are the first

choice of all doctors. The claim was also not backed

by a third-party validation. The claim is misleading





53. @ 2011-C.2235 Y-Axis Overseas Careers

MEDIUM: Digital Video,

(http://mxplayer.in)(English) (21.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Immigration Company”















(http://mxplayer.in) and observed that the advertiser

is promoting overseas careers. Upon careful



that the leadership claim, “No.1 Immigration

Company” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s company and

other immigration companies, to prove that they are

in leadership position (No.1) than the others. The

claim was also not backed by a third-party validation.






54. @ 2011-C.2247 Chetna Vyasanmukati

Kendra

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Aurangabad Edition,

Supplement Hello Aurangabad (Marathi)

(04.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Awarded Maharashtra Government State Level

Rashtrapita Mahatma Gandhi VyasanmuktiSeva

Award”















file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/mxplayer.in)

file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/mxplayer.in)



that the advertiser’s centre is providing treatment for

addiction problems and is claiming to be `awarded

Maharashtra Government State Level Rashtrapita

Mahatma Gandhi VyasanmuktiSeva Award’.




“Maharashtra Government State Level Rashtrapita

Mahatma Gandhi VyasanmuktiSeva Award” was not





Medical centres / hospitals that were part of the

survey and the outcome of the survey. The source for





Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code,



55. @ 2012-C.2249 Hearts Sanjivani Centre

Multimedical& Research Institut

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Nasik Edition, Supplement

Hello Nasik (Marathi) (29.09.2020)


Claim Objected To:

“Complete Freedom from Heart Disease without

Operation, Without Surgery”
















that the advertiser is providing medical treatment for

all heart problems/diseases without operation or

surgery. However, the advertiser did not provide any

details of the treatment procedure, nor any details

regarding the medicines used for treatment of the

claimed diseases, and their approval status by the





“Complete Freedom from Heart Disease without

Operation, Without Surgery” was not substantiated

with any supporting clinical evidence and treatment

efficacy data of patients who were treated for heart

diseases. The claim is misleading by exaggeration


the minds of consumers particularly patients

suffering from Heart problems/ diseases. The print



56. @ 2012-C.2262 East Coast Hospitals Ltd

MEDIUM: Dinakaran, Pondicherry Edition,

Supplement Thozhil Malar (Magazine)(English)

(25.10.2020)

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT: Claim objected to:

“Painless Labour”
















observed that the advertiser is providing treatment for

pregnancy and child delivery without pain. However,

the advertiser did not provide any details of the

treatment procedure, nor any details regarding the

medicines used for treatment of painless delivery,

and their approval status by the regulatory

authorities.




“painless labour” was not substantiated with any


data of women who delivered children without any

other intervention such as pain killers/ local

anaesthesia or epidural injections. The claim omits


the modalities of the delivery procedure. The claim



consumers particularly pregnant women. The print



57. @ 2012-C.2264 Apex Hospital

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*),Moradabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“The Most Reliable Centre for Laparoscopy

Operation in Western Uttar Pradesh”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:: Exparte















that the advertiser’s Hospital is providing treatment

for Laparoscopy.




Most Reliable Centre for Laparoscopy Operation in

Western Uttar Pradesh” was not substantiated with

any market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s hospital versus

other hospitals providing treatment for Laparoscopy

in western Uttar Pradesh, to prove that their centre is

more reliable than the others, nor the claim was







58. @ 2012-C.2266 Citizen Solar Private Limited

– Citizen Solar range of Products

MEDIUM: Gujarat Samachar, Vadodara Edition,

Main Issue(English) (21.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Most Reliable Solar Panel for House, Office

and Factory”
















that advertiser is promoting their solar panels

products.




Most Reliable Solar Panel for House, Office and

Factory” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s product versus other manufacturers of

solar panels, to prove that their product is more

reliable than the others, nor the claim was backed by

a third-party validation.






59. @ 2012-C.2267 Gangotri Solar System Pvt.

Ltd - Gangotri Solar Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Nainital Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. Join with Uttarakhand's Most Reliable Solar Brand

2. Uttarakhand's Fastest Growing Solar Company

















that advertiser is promoting their solar range of

products. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of any comments or

response from the advertiser, the CCC settled that the

claim, “Join with Uttarakhand's Most Reliable Solar

Brand” with any market survey data or with


product versus other Solar brands in Uttarakhand, to

prove that their solar brand is more reliable than the

others. Claim, “Uttarakhand's Fastest Growing

Solar Company” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s Solar

company, versus other such Solar companies in

Uttarakhand, to prove that they are growing faster

than the others. The claims were not backed by a

third-party validation. The claims are misleading by





60. @ 2012-C.2268 March Imaging & Diagnostic

Center

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Bikaner Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Most Advance Diagnostic Centre that Provide

Advance Clinical Capabilities for Diagnostic

Assurance”

















concluded that the claim, “Most Advance Diagnostic

Centre that Provide Advance Clinical Capabilities for

Diagnostic Assurance” was not substantiated with


diagnostic centre versus other similar diagnostic

centres, to prove that they are more advanced than

the rest, nor the claim was backed by a third party






61. @ 2012-C.2272 Ziva Embryology and

Fertility Institute


Supplement Healthcare Times (Tabloid)(English)

(10.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Choose the Best

2. Hyderabad's Most Experienced Team















observed that the advertiser’s treatment centre is

providing treatments in field of fertility, andrology as

well as holistic care.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Choose the Best”



hospital versus other similar hospitals, to prove that

they are better than the rest.

Claim, “Hyderabad's Most Experienced Team” was


the advertiser’s hospital versus other similar hospitals

in Hyderabad, to prove that their team engaged in the

advertiser’s hospital is more experienced than the

others.


The claims were not backed by a third party

validation. The claims are misleading by





62. @ 2012-C.2273 American Oncology Institute

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Vizag Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Best Cancer Hospital in India”
















treatment for cancer.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Cancer Hospital

in India” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s hospital versus other cancer hospitals in

India, to prove that they are better than the rest in

providing treatment for cancer, nor the claim was







63. @ 2012-C.2282 Eco Crystal Pvt Ltd – Eco

Crystal Brand Water Purifiers

MEDIUM: EP Hindu(*), Coimbatore Edition, Main



Claims objected to:

1. World's Best Water Purifier in India

2. World’s Best Quality

3. India’s first magnetized pure drinking water















observed that the Advertiser is promoting Eco Crystal

Brand of water purifier.



CCC concluded that the claims, “World's Best Water

Purifier in India” and “World’s Best Quality” were


verifiable comparative data for worldwide, of the

advertiser’s brand versus other water purifier brands,

to prove that the quality of their water purifier, and

their water purifier is better than the others. The

claims were also not backed by an independent third

party validation.

Claim, “India’s first magnetized pure drinking water”


data of the advertiser’s product versus other water

purifiers in India, to prove that the advertiser’s

product is the first in India to come up with

magnetized pure drinking water. Also, the claim was

not backed by a third party validation.






64. @ 2012-C.2283 Guru KripaJagrati Hospital

& Research Centre Pvt

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Allahabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Best Treatment of Infertility”

















treatment for Infertility.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Treatment of

Infertility” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s hospital versus other similar hospitals, to

prove that they are better than the rest in providing

treatment for infertility, nor the claim was backed by

a third party validation.






65. @ 2012-C.2285 Popular Multispecialty

Hospital




Claim objected to:

“Purvanchal's Best Hospital & Well Equipped

Hospital”
















treatment for various ailments.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Purvanchal's Best

Hospital & Well Equipped Hospital” was not



hospital versus other similar hospitals in Purvanchal,

to prove that they are better than the rest in providing

treatment, nor the claim was backed by a third party






66. @ 2012-C.2286 Shuddhi Nasha Mukti Evam

Punarvas Kendra (Shuddhi Deaddiction

Center)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*),Bhopal Edition,



Claim objected to:

“MP's Best De-Addiction Centre”















observed that the advertiser’s treatment centre is

providing treatment for addiction.



CCC concluded that the claim, “MP's Best De-

Addiction Centre” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s treatment centre versus other

similar treatment centres in Madhya Pradesh, to

prove that they are better than the rest, nor the claim







67. @ 2012-C.2288 Upkar Developers


MEDIUM: Prajavani, Bangalore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Awarded as Best Plotted Developer 2020”

















estate, and is promoting their various residential

projects. Upon careful consideration of the

complaint and in the absence of any comments or


the claim, “Awarded as Best Plotted Developer

2020” was not substantiated with copy of the award




other real estate developers that were part of the


the awarding body. The source for the claim was not

indicated in the advertisement




Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and



68. @ 2012-C.2289 TIL-Trisha Infrastructure

Ltd - Trisha Solar Panel




Claims objected to:

1. Best Price

2. Best Quality Assurance















observed that the advertiser is promoting their solar

panel product claiming it to be the best in price and

quality.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Best

Price” and “Best Quality Assurance”, were not


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s solar

panel brand verses similar solar panel brands, to

prove that their product pricing and quality is better

than the rest, nor the claims were backed by a third-

party validation.






69. @ 2012-C.2290 Dubey Clinic (Dr. Sunil

Kumar Dubey)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Patna Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Honored with Bharat Gaurav Award - Government

of India”















observed that the advertiser is promoting his clinic


and is claiming to be àwarded with Bharat Gaurav

Award by Government of India’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Honored with Bharat

Gaurav Award - Government of India” was not


details of the process for selection for the award,



similar clinics that were part of the survey, the



indicated in the advertisement




Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and



70. @ 2012-C.2291 Ariston Thermo India Private

Limited- Racold Omnis Water Heater

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Pune Edition,

Supplement Pune Times(English) (31.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Winner of Good Design Award”











Complaints Council (CCC) noted that no




observed that the advertiser is promoting a water

heater product claiming it to be àwarded as winner

for good design’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Winner of Good

Design Award” was not substantiated with copy of

the award certificate, details of the process for

selection of the award, criteria for granting the award,


questionnaires used, names of other water heater

brands that were part of the survey, the outcome of


The source for the claim was not mentioned in the

advertisement.




Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and



71. @ 2012-C.2292 Dhanwantri E-commerce

Private Limited (Dhanwantris.com)

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Moradabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“India's Largest Online Market”
















platform for shopping and is claiming to be Ìndia’s

largest online market’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “India's Largest

Online Market” was not substantiated with any

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s online

shopping platform versus other online shopping

platforms in India, to prove that they have a larger

online market than the others, nor the claim was







72. @ 2012-C.2294 Skora Coatings (Skora

Paints)


MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Satara Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“India's No.1 Hydrophobic & Breathable Paint”















observed that the advertiser is promoting wall paints

under the brand name `Skora’ claiming it to be

`India's No.1 hydrophobic & breathable Paint’.



CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “India's

No.1 Hydrophobic & Breathable Paint” was not


advertiser’s brand and other paint brands in India, to

prove that their brand is in leadership position for

being Hydrophobic & Breathable paint. The claim







73. @ 2012-C.2296 Freshtohome Foods Private

Limited- (freshtohome.com)

MEDIUM: EP Mathrubhumi(*), Palakkad Edition,

Main Issue (Malayalam) (01.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's No.1 Fresh Fish & Meat Home Delivery

Service”















observed that the advertiser is providing home

delivery service of fish and meat and is claiming to

be `India’s No.1 home delivery service’.



CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “India's

No.1 Fresh Fish & Meat Home Delivery Service”


data of the market share by value/volume, of the

advertiser’s business of home delivery service and

other similar home delivery services in India, to

prove that the advertiser is in leadership position

(No.1). The claim was also not backed by a third-






74. @ 2012-C.2298 Anand Detergents-New

(Anand’s No.1 Premium Detergent Powder)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jabalpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“No.1 in Name and Work”















observed that the advertiser is promoting products

such as detergent, liquid detergent, hand wash as well

as job work services and plastic materials.




CCC concluded that the leadership claim, “No.1 in

Name and Work” was not substantiated with


value/volume of the advertiser’s brand and other

similar detergent powder brands, to prove that the

advertiser’s brand is in leadership position (No.1) for

its name and work. The claim was also not backed by

a third-party validation.






75. @ 2012-C.2299 Rajam Industries Private

Limited – Oorvasi Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Dinakaran, Tirunelveli Edition,

Supplement Thozhil Malar(Tamil) (22.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Premium Detergent Powder”















observed that the advertiser is promoting their

detergent powder product. Upon careful



that the leadership claim, “No.1 Premium Detergent

Powder” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the market share by

value/volume, of the advertiser’s brand of detergent

powder and similar detergent powder brands, to

prove that their brand is in leadership position (No.1).






76. @ 2012-C.2300 Saatvik Green Energy (P) Ltd

MEDIUM: Divya Bhaskar(*), Ahmedabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“North India's No.1”















observed that the advertiser is solar Panel

Manufacturing Company. Upon careful consideration



leadership claim, “North India's No.1” was not


market share by value/volume, of the advertiser’s

company and other similar solar Panel Manufacturing

Companies in North India, to prove that the

advertiser is in leadership position (No.1). The claim







AYUSH Complaints

77. @ 2012-C.2232 Ayurvedic Clinic

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), New Delhi Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. Quit Alcohol without the Knowledge

2. Successfully Quit every addiction such as

Alcohol, Charas, Smake, Afim, Bhaang, Gaanja,

Fluid, etc

















that the advertiser is claiming that an addicted person

can quit alcohol, drugs, or other similar addiction

through their ayurvedic medicines. The CCC

observed that the advertiser did not provide any

details of the treatment procedure, nor any details

regarding the medicines used for treatment of the

claimed diseases, and their approval status by the




advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Quit

Alcohol without the Knowledge” and “Successfully

and Quit every addiction such as Alcohol, Charas,

Smake, Afim, Bhaang, Gaanja, Fluid, etc” were not

substantiated with any supporting clinical evidence

and treatment efficacy data of the patients who were

successfully treated for alcohol and other drugs

addiction. The claims are misleading by exaggeration

and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers particularly people

suffering from these addictions.


1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

78. @ 2011-C.2233 Ayurvedpuram

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Allahabad Edition,

Main issue (Hindi) (29.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. North India's best private ''Kshar-Sutra/ Anus

diseases (Gudarog) Institute

2. Honoured with the Best Ayurvedic (Kshar-Sutra)

Doctor

3. Achiever Award 2016 and Health Care Achievers

Award 2019- Rewarded & Honoured by Res. Health

Minister, Prayagraj
















that the advertiser is providing treatment for various

diseases like piles, fissure, fistula, constipation,

colitis etc.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “North

India's best private Kshar-Sutra/ Anus diseases

(Gudarog) Institute’’ was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s institute versus other such

medical institute in North India, to prove that they are

better than the rest in providing treatment for the

claimed diseases, nor the claim was backed by a third

party validation.

The claims, ‘Honoured with the Best Ayurvedic

(Kshar-Sutra) Doctor” and “Achiever Award 2016

and Health Care Achievers Award 2019- Rewarded

& Honoured by Res. Health Minister, Prayagraj”

were not substantiated with copy of the award

certificates, details of the process for award selection,



other ayurvedic doctors that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey, and details about the

awarding body. The source for the claims was also

not mentioned.




contravened Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of


was UPHELD.

79. @2011-C.2245 Jagat Pharma (Isotine Eye

Drops)


(http://hindustantimes.com*) (English) (10.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Don’t blame your age, Get vision back naturally,

say no to surgery!”

file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/hindustantimes.com*)

















(http://hindustantimes.com*) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting `Isoneuron capsule’ and

`Isotine eye drops’ by claiming that it gives vision

back naturally. However the advertiser did not






advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Don’t

blame your age, Get vision back naturally, say no to

surgery!”, was not substantiated with clinical

evidence of product efficacy. The claim is






80. @ 2012-C.2256 Pankaj Clinic

(Dr.RamendraDubey)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Indore Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (29.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Immediate freedom from Piles

2. Cure Piles from the root in 5 to 7 Days

3. Cure Fistula, Fissure, Pilonidal Sinus and Rectal

Prolapse Quickly from the Root without Surgery
















observed that advertiser is providing treatment for

Piles, Fistula, Fissure, Pilonidal Sinus and Rectal

Prolapse without surgery. However the advertiser

did not provide any details of the treatment







“Immediate freedom from Piles”, “Cure Piles from

the root in 5 to 7 Days”, and “Cure Fistula, Fissure,

Pilonidal Sinus and Rectal Prolapse Quickly from the

Root without Surgery” were not substantiated with

any supporting clinical evidence and treatment

efficacy data of their patients who were treated for

the claimed diseases. The claims are misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers

particularly patients suffering from Piles, Fistula,

Fissure, Pilonidal Sinus and Rectal Prolapse. The

print advertisement contravened Chapters 1.1, 1.4,

and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

UPHELD.

81. @ 2012-C.2257 KBS Herbal (India) Ltd –

(Dadwin Range of Products)

MEDIUM: Punjab Kesari, Chandigarh Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (04.10.2020)


Claim Objected To:

“Only Solution for Ringworm – Dadwin Lotion”















http://hindustantimes.com*/



observed that the advertiser is promoting `Dadwin

lotion’ and claiming that it is the only solution for

Ringworm. However the advertiser did not provide






advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Only

Solution for Ringworm – Dadwin Lotion”, was not


efficacy. The claim is misleading by exaggeration





82. Suo Motu 2012-C.2326 Hamdard

Laboratories (India) (Hamdard Joshina)

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fGFO6C1WtE)

ADVERTISING AGENCY: MOM Content Studio

LLP


Claims & Visuals Objected to:

1. Visual of a person with red spikes on this head

resembles coronavirus

2. Voice Over states “Just a sneeze or cough, people

will think of quarantine and ventilator

Complaint:

ASCI observes in the current Covid-19 pandemic

situation, the visual resembling the Coronavirus on

the head of a person accompanied by the audio in the

TVC viz. "Just a sneeze or cough, people will think

of quarantine and ventilator”, is misleading by

implication that the syrup cures or treats Coronavirus.

As we understand the product is only meant for relief

from Coughing, Sneezing and itchy throat.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “More so COVID-19 virus has

not only depicted in images having only red spikes

but in different colours including blue, yellow,

saffron etc. and actual image of the said virus is

changing therefore claiming that red spike resembles

of COVID-19 virus only is not correct propositions.

The advertisement do not claim at any time that it

treats COVID-19. It is true state of affair that people

get scared just on a sneeze or cough now day which

actually is not the symptom of COVID-19 as notified

by concerned Government agencies time and again.

Therefore use of the expression JUST before a sneeze

or cough clears the cloud and there remain no

ambiguity among the viewer of the post that the

product treats cough and cold.”

Advertiser in their response showed some images of

COVID-19 virus which are available on digital

platforms. Advertiser also provided a copy of the

advertisement, copy of the storyboard, and front and

back of product pack.


the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fGFO6C1WtE)

and considered the advertiser’s response. The

advertiser is promoting a herbal cough and cold

remedy – `Hamdard Joshina’ meant for coughing,

sneezing, and itchy throat. The visual shows a man

with red spikes on this head, voice over says

“……..Ek cheenkh yah khaansi aur logo ke dimaak

mein quarantine aur ventilator ghoomey lagega”.

However, the advertisement does not carry any

disclaimers.

The CCC observed that the visual depiction of the

person having red spikes on his head had an odd

resemblance with coronavirus, despite the fact that

the same was intended to represent a normal viral

cough and cold. Further the use of words `quarantine’

and `ventilator’ in the advertisement directly relates

to the COVID-19. The CCC felt that given the

current pandemic situation, a common individual

viewing the advertisement could relate the visual

depiction of a person having coronavirus like red

spikes with the disease COVID-19 itself. The

imagery and use of words like `quarantine’ and

`ventilator’ in all likelihood could create a

misinterpretation in the minds of consumers, who

may think that the product may cure COVID-19. The

CCC opined that in the current context a disclaimer

would make it clear to the members of the common

public that the advertised product is not for COVID-

19.


there is an element of puffery and exaggeration

which is evident in the advertisement, however, it is

not likely to mislead or cause grave or widespread

disappointment amongst consumers. This complaint

was NOT UPHELD

However, in view of the current COVID-19

pandemic situation, the CCC recommended that the

advertiser should include an appropriate disclaimer in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fGFO6C1WtE


favour of the public.

FSSAI Complaints:

83. @ 2011-C.1736 Arsh Bread And Bakery

Private Limited - King Bread Range of

Products

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Meerut Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (18.08.2020)


Claims objected to:

“Meerut's No.1 King Bread”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they availed and

subsequently requested for an extension of time to

submit their detailed response to the objection raised

in the complaint. The deadlines stipulated by

Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure

exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread

impact that advertisements have on the public.

Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken

with respect to the same is required to be prompt and

urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as

stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc.

and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with

every complaint before it as expeditiously as

possible. However, as a special gesture, the

advertiser was granted an extension of additional five

business days to respond.

The advertiser requested for a second extension

which was not granted by the ASCI Secretariat.



product – King Bread and claiming their brand to be

No.1 in Meerut. However, the advertiser did not

provide any verifiable comparative data or market

research data to prove that their range of bread

products are selling more than all other similar bread

brands in Meerut in terms of value or volume share,

or through an independent third-party validation.


concluded that the claim, “Meerut's No.1 King

Bread” was not substantiated to prove that King

Bread is in leadership position (No.1) than all the rest

in Meerut. The claim is misleading by

exaggeration. The print advertisement contravened



Post the CCC meeting, the advertiser confirmed that

the said advertisement has been withdrawn and the

claim will not be repeated again in their future

advertisements.

84. @ 2011-C.2234 Voltedge Marketing Pvt. Ltd

– Proathlix Protein Bar


(http://deccanchronicle.com)(English) (16.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India’s No 1 Brand in Sports Nutrition”





seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by





telecon with the ASCI Secretariat to seek further

guidance, which they did not avail nor did they

submit their written response. The Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) noted that the advertiser

did not submit their response addressing the

complaint prior to the prescribed due date for this

complaint.


(http://deccanchronicle.com) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting a food product- `Proathlix

protein bar’ claiming that it is `India’s No.1 brand in

sports nutrition’.



CCC concluded that the claim “India’s No 1 Brand in

Sports Nutrition” was not substantiated with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s brand

of protein bar and other similar brands of nutritional

protein bars, to prove that they are in leadership

position (No.1) than all the rest, or through an



grave disappointment in the minds of consumers. The

digital display advertisement contravened Chapters


was UPHELD.

85. @ 2011-C.2237 Herbs Nutriproducts Pvt Ltd

– Pure Nutrition Range of Products


(http://medicaldaily.com) (English) (04.09.2020)


file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/deccanchronicle.com)

file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/deccanchronicle.com)

about:blank


Claims objected to:

1. Pure Nutrition Best Supplements

2. Those Prone to Frequent Infections & Those who

want to slow down Ageing
















(http://medicaldaily.com) and noted that the

advertiser is promoting nutrition supplements. The

CCC observed that the advertiser did not provide






advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Pure

Nutrition Best Supplements” was not substantiated


comparative data of the advertiser’s nutrition

supplements versus other such nutrition supplements

brands, to prove that they are better than all the rest,


Claim, ”Those Prone to Frequent Infections & Those

who want to slow down Ageing” was not

substantiated with product efficacy data.






86. @ 2011-C.2238 Guardian Healthcare Services

Pvt. Ltd (GNC) – GNC Range of Products


(http://namemeaningsdictionary.com) (English)

(10.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Stock up on these delicious meal replacements and

other dietary solutions to be in shape”















The CCC noted that the advertiser deals in wide

range of health products like protein supplements,

omega supplements, and skin and heath care

supplements.


(http://namemeaningsdictionary.com) and observed

that the advertiser is promoting their product as

delicious meal replacements and other dietary

solutions to be in shape. The advertiser did not






advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Stock

up on these delicious meal replacements and other

dietary solutions to be in shape”, was not


efficacy. Moreover, it would create a confusion in

minds of unaware consumers, who may presume that

the advertiser’s products would enable them to get in

shape and misunderstand to not consume any other

food/ meal thereby affecting their nutrition and

overall heath. The claim is misleading by implication

and exaggeration, and is likely to lead to grave


digital display advertisement contravened Chapters

1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint

was UPHELD.

87. @ 2011-C.2239 Patankar Farm Products

(Spices, Rice, Oil, Dal & Honey)


(http://pakwangali.in) (English) (09.11.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Organic Food Products

2. 100% Organic Best Quality Food Products

CCC RECOMMENDATION:

about:blank

file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_Green%20Forms.zip/Green%20Forms/Tanvi/(http:/medicaldaily.com)

about:blank








submitted their written response. Advertiser stated

that “the said advertisement was not given by them in

the site mentioned. They are not claiming of having

certified organic products but they are organic.

Quality of food is a lot about perception also. There

are many ads which say best quality.”

Advertiser further sought for guidance from ASCI

Secretariat on the claims made. On their request,

they were provided with an opportunity to discuss

their queries via telecon, which was not availed by

them.



(http://pakwangali.in) and considered the advertiser’s

response. The CCC observed that the advertiser did

not provide any product specific information such as

copy of product label, product approval license,

product composition details, nor any organic

certification for their advertised product as per FSSAI

requirements. Advertiser also did not provide

supporting evidence to prove that the product fulfils

the FSSAI criteria to claim ‘100% organic’. Upon


absence of evidence of their product qualified to be

100% organic, by a certifying body, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “100% Organic Food

Products” was not substantiated.

Claim, “100% Organic Best Quality Food Products”

was not substantiated with market survey data or with

verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s food

product/s versus other similar organic food products

to prove that their product/s are better in quality than

all the rest, nor the claim was backed by an

independent third-party report.


likely to lead to grave or widespread disappointment

in the minds of consumers. The digital display



88. @ 2011-C.2242 Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd.(*)

(Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Kellogg’s Chocos)

MEDIUM: OTT Platform – Hotstar App(*)

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApIb2Zlfo8)


Claim objected to:

“Superior to breakfast”

Complaint:

“I am a Food Technologist with M.Tech in Food

Technology. Currently involved in freelance

consulting for food companies. There was a video

advertisement in tamil in an app called Hotstar

claiming that the Kellogs chocos and cornflakes are

superior than breakfast. The celebrity in the

advertisement says kellogs is superior than breakfast.

Need to know how will it be superior than breakfast.

Yes I am referring to the claim mentioned in the

shared YouTube video.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser stated that “They are not saying that

'Kellogg's is superior to breakfast" nor do they draw

parallels with any other breakfast options. The only

intent of the TVC is to convey the emotional value

breakfast has for a mother. It's much more than just a

spoonful of breakfast, it's her aspirations for her

child and her/his daily triumphs.” Advertiser further

sought for IR of the complaint.

The advertiser was offered an option to resolve the

complaint under IR mechanism or to submit their

response. Advertiser did not opt for IR but requested

for an extension to provide their submissions. The

deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints












respond.

On the advertiser’s request they were provided with

an opportunity to discuss their submission via telecon

with the ASCI Secretariat.

Advertiser in their response stated that “In the

context of the entire TVC they are using a creative

concept communicated through a creative rendition

“breakfast se badhkar” to represent a mother’s

about:blank


aspirations for her child to be able to do every-day

activities and the psychological and sensorial

satisfaction and enjoyment that comes from relishing

their food. TVC uses the word ‘Melaandhu’ which is

the closest Tamil equivalent word to ‘badhkar” in

Hindi and does not translate to “superior”. Google

translation shows that “melaandhu” means “more”

in English language. This clearly indicates that the

sentence reads as ‘More than Breakfast’ which when

heard, read and understood in context of the entire

TVC which depicts different examples of a mother’s

emotion while feeding her child, suggests that it is

not just breakfast that she is serving, but more than

breakfast (including her love, care, affection).”


Storyboard of the TVC in Hindi with supers, (2)

Storyboard of the TVC in English with supers, (3)

Summary of the creative evaluation of the TVC, (4)

YouTube link of the advertisement in Hindi, (5) Email

from the Agency for reference to the creative

evaluation test of the TVC referred to in their

response.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the

advertisement appeared on OTT Platform – Hotstar

App and the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApIb2Zlfo8),mi

n Hindi and Tamil, and considered the advertiser’s

response.

The CCC noted that on a telephonic conversation with

the ASCI Secretariat the advertiser clarified that the

word `badhkar’ was used to represent mother’s

aspiration for her child. The CCC discussed that the

word `badhkar’ may not be intended to be used in a

context of superiority of breakfast items and in overall

presentation of the advertisement and that the same

could possibly reflect the mother’s love for her child.

However, the claim “Breakfast se badhkar” makes a

direct comparison of the advertiser’s product with

breakfast and hence, the claim is classified to be a

superiority claim.

The CCC concluded that the claim, “Breakfast se

badhkar” is directly comparing to breakfast which was

not proven. The said claim was inadequately


exaggeration and is likely to lead to grave or


consumers. The OTT Platform – Hotstar App and the

YouTube advertisement contravened Chapters I.1, I.4


UPHELD.

89. @ 2012-C.2258 Bellapierre India – Fitmark

Naturalz Keto Health Supplement

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Chandigarh Edition,

Supplement My City (Hindi) (02.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Sure Shot Boon for Men and Women to Reduce

Weight

2. Best Keto Health Supplement Capsule















The CCC noted that the advertiser deals in wide

range of products like makeup, perfumes, fashion

accessories and face, body and hair care products

including products like heath supplements and also

products like anti-ageing, skin lightening,

moisturising and other skin requirements. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement and observed that the

advertiser is promoting their Keto Health Supplement

(Capsule) claiming it to be the `best’ and a `Sure Shot

Boon for Men and Women to Reduce Weight’. The


information such as copy of product approval license,

product label, and product composition details.




Keto Health Supplement Capsule” was not


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s heath

supplement capsule versus other similar heath

supplements capsules, to prove that their product is

better than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a


Claim, “Sure Shot Boon for Men and Women to

Reduce Weight and Best Keto Health Supplement

Capsule” was not substantiated with clinical evidence

of product efficacy.





complaint was UPHELD

90. @ 2012-C.2260 Ansika Trading Pvt Ltd –

Nutty Nest Nuts for Days (Range of Cashews)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApIb2Zlfo8),min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApIb2Zlfo8),min


MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Trichy Edition,

Supplement Times Business Awards (English)

(30.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Nuts for Days Brings you The Healthiest Cashews

at one of the Best Rates!

2. Meet this Year’s Healthiest Budget Snack Brand
















observed that the advertiser is promoting various

flavour of Cashew Nuts as a natural and unprocessed

snack and has claimed that their cashews are

healthiest Cashews being offered at best rates, and

also that their brand is `Healthiest Budget Snack

Brand’ of this year.



CCC concluded that the claims, “The Healthiest

Cashews at one of the Best Rates” and “Meet this

Year’s Healthiest Budget Snack Brand” were not



cashew nuts versus other brands of cashew nuts, to

prove that their product is healthier and is better

priced, and healthiest budget snack brand, than the

others, nor the claims were backed by a third party

validation.






91. @ 2012-C.2261 Poncho Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. –

Mojo Pizza

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Gurgaon Edition,

Supplement Gurgaon Times (English) (10.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's Highest Rated Pizza Delivery Chain”
















that advertiser has 120+ stores across India for pizza

delivery. The advertiser has claimed to be the` India’s

Highest Rated Pizza Delivery Chain’ and displayed

their ratings on three apps namely Zomato, Play store

and app store.




“India’s Highest Rated Pizza Delivery Chain’’ was


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s, pizza

delivery chain with other such pizza delivery chains,

to prove that they are rated higher than all the rest in

pizza delivery, nor the claim was backed by a third-

party validation.






2012-CCC.25

Complaint for Re-Examination:

92. Suo Motu 2010-C.1567 Brown- Forman India

Private Limited- (Jack Daniel's Merchandise)

MEDIUM:OTT - Disney Plus Hotstar(*)

(15.10.2020)

YouTube (*) (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v

=B1JzZ19MWTU)


Complaint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1JzZ19MWTU




“Jack Daniel’s Merchandise advertisement shows

communicating a new tagline of Jack Daniel’s “make

it count”

Objections:

1. “The advertisement appears to be a surrogate ad for

Jack Daniel’s”

2. “It is a violation of Guidelines for Qualification of

Brand Extension Product or Service”
















advertiser who is in the business of selling alcoholic

beverages is promoting Jack Daniel’s, a liquor brand

through the ad that starts with three girls on a bench

near a lake and suddenly one of their phone rings, she

answers it and throws it into the lake. The scene ends

with a voiceover, “I always wanted to do that”. The

ad flows into two more frames, one in which a couple

is dancing and showing their moves and the other in

which a man messes/scratches the vinly record on the

turntable while music is playing and catches the

attention of others. Both frames ending with the

voiceover, “aways wanted to do that”. The ad finally

ends with a statement, make it count.

Advertiser did not provide the annual market sales

data of the product advertised, required licenses and

certificates as proof of their brand extension product

being registered with appropriate Government

authorities, proof of the in-store availability of the

product being at least 10% of the leading brand in the

category the product competes as measured in metro

cities where the product is advertised, and a valid

certificate from an independent organization for

distribution and sales turnover. In the absence of this

data, the CCC concluded that the advertisement

depicting the brand name – Jack Daniel’s

Merchandise is a surrogate advertisement for

promotion of a liquor product - Jack Daniel’s.

The CCC viewed the OTT advertisement and

carefully considered all submissions made and found

that there are no overt liquor cues in the

advertisement and thus content was acceptable and

not in breach of the ASCI code.

However, there was no evidence provided to

substantiate product distribution and sales turnover as

per the ASCI guidelines. There was no data

supporting the in store availability of the product

being at 10% of the leading brand in the category

where the product competes as measured in metro

cities where the product is advertised. Similarly, there

was no CA certificate to show a sales turnover of Rs.

5 cr/annum nationally or Rs. 1cr/annum per state

where distribution has been established. On the basis

of the documents on record, the CCC concluded that

the Advertiser has not been able to adequately

substantiate that it is a genuine line extension

product. The ad contravened the ASCI guidelines for

Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service.

It was found in violation of Chapter III, clause 3.6 (a)

of the ASCI code. The complaint was UPHELD.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON RE-

EXAMINATION:









ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail but replied

requesting for an extension of seven days to submit

their response.








advertisers/broadcasters etc, and the CCC itself


before it as expeditiously as possible. Hence the

advertiser was not granted an extension.

In the absence of the advertiser’s 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.

As the advertiser’s response was received post the

CCC meeting, they were offered a `Re-examination

procedure’ and were advised to seek a Review of the

CCC decision.

On receiving the CCC recommendation, the

advertiser submitted their response for Re-

examination which stated that “Jack Daniel’s


Properties, Inc. (“JDPI”) is the owner of trademark

registrations for the trademark JACK DANIEL’S and

its variants in the relevant classes for products sold

under the Jack Daniel’s Merchandise brand like

clothing, footwear, bags, etc. According to

information provided by the licensee, between

November 2019 until end of November 2020, there

has been sizeable sales volume of the Jack Daniel’s

Merchandise by the licensee to BFI affiliates,

distributors and third party customers nationally

which amount to around USD 180,000/- (approx.

INR 1.33 Crore). Of these, around USD 154,400/-

(approx. INR 1.14 Crore) sales were in the state of

Haryana. The products under the Jack Daniel’s

Merchandise brand are sold through a mix of online

and physical channels in India, and is available on e-

commerce websites like Flipkart where it is sold

pursuant to execution of a sales agreement between

JDPI’s licensee and Flipkart. This merchandise is

also sold in various retail outlets. It is submitted that

given the very short window of time in which BFI has

been able to effect sales and distribution of its brand

merchandise due to the reasons discussed above, it is

currently not possible to conduct any meaningful

independent third party research to certify the

distribution and sales turnover of the Jack Daniel’s

Merchandise products.”

Advertiser in their response provided an illustrative

list of the relevant trademark registrations, and

illustrative screenshots from Flipkart.

Further as claim support data, the advertiser provided

– (1) their response of 20 November 2020, (2) Order

dated 23 March, 2020 passed by The Hon’able

Supreme Court In “In Re: Cognizance For Extension

Of Limitation, Suo Motu Wp (C) No. 3/2020, (3)

Registration certificates of the trademarks, (4)

Screenshots of e-commerce websites and photos of

the Jack Daniel’s Merchandise products in physical

stores.

The CCC viewed the TVC and the YouTube

advertisement (https://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=B1JzZ19MWTU) and

considered the advertiser’s response for Re-

examination with the supporting data provided by

them.

The CCC observed that the advertiser provided sales

data and other related information for consideration.

Their products under the Jack Daniel’s Merchandise

brand were sold through online and physical channels

in India. They were available on e-commerce

websites like Flipkart and were also sold in various

retail outlets. The CCC also noted the advertiser’s

assertion that between November 2019 until end of

November 2020, the sales volume of their product

amounted to around USD 180,000/- (approx. INR

1.33 Crore) of which around USD 154,400/- (approx.

INR 1.14 Crore) sales was in Haryana.

The CCC discussed that the sales data and the

relevant information while it met the quantitative

criteria, was not independently verified or certified

by a Chartered Accountant as is clearly required by

way of evidence by ASCI brand extension guidelines.

The advertiser did not submit a valid certificate from

an independent organization such as AC Nielsen or

category specific industry association (for

distribution and sales turnover) to prove the

concerned criteria.


the TVC and the YouTube advertisement was in

contravention of Clause 3 of ASCI Guidelines for

Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service.

The earlier recommendation of the CCC of

complaint being Upheld stands on Re-

examination.


[email protected]

93. W 2011C.1901 Vodafone Idea Limited

(Vodafone Idea-Fastest 4G)

MEDIUM: Hoarding at Bandra Worli Link Road

Economic Times(*) Mumbai/Goa Edition on

05.11.2020

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Ogilvy(*)


Claim objected to:

“Mumbai ka, Maharashtra Ka, India ka Fastest 4G

Giganet”

Complaint:

“I am a telecom consumer and have experimented

with 4G service of most service providers. While all

claim that they provide fastest service, no one offers

the speed as promised everywhere you go and

always. The speed keeps varying from location to

location. Therefore, I am surprised by some claims of

always giving the best speed anywhere in India,

because generally they are fake.

One such claim, I saw was by a company VI, which

said that it is the fastest 4G network in Mumbai,

Maharashtra and India. I wanted to buy a SIM, if this

is true, but found out that this is Vodafone and Idea

network only. I already had a bad 4G experience with

them and wondered how come the Government is

allowing such ads. Also, I saw that they had put some

justification on the bottom of the ad but that is

unreadable.





I did some online investigation and found that as per

TRAI Speedtest, they are not the best, then how come

your organisation is allowing such sick and

misleading advertisement basis some fake points

which are not even readable. Then I did some more

research and found that ASCI has been proactively

barring such fake advertisements.

Thus clearly, ASCI knows the issue and has taken

actions against operators. How come VI is still doing

the same nonsense again. ASCI should take strong

action this time so that operators stop fooling the

customers by such falsehood. The picture of

offending hoarding is attached.”

Suo motu objections:

“The size of the disclaimer is not in line with ASCI’s

Disclaimer Guidelines specific to Clause 1- A

disclaimer should be clear, prominent and eligible.

Disclaimer should be clearly visible to a normally

sighted person reading the marketing communication

once from a reasonable distance and at a reasonable

speed.

In static mediums like hoardings, disclaimers should

have font sizes equivalent to 2.6% of the height of the

medium and NOT LESS THAN 10 point font size.

For large hoarding of 400 sq feet or more, the font

size should NOT BE LESS than 100 points.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser in their response stated that “So far as font

size of the disclaimer is concerned, they have a

confirmation from their agency to that effect that the

disclaimer is in line with ASCI requirement and as

per industry practice.

It clarifies that the claim is based on Ookla India

market report dated October 28, 2020 and Ookla

certificate dated October 19, 2020. Further the claim

is fully substantiated as disclaimer refers to website

which contains full terms & conditions and claim

support. They also submit the Ookla methodology for

the claims approved by them. Claim is based on an

independent Ookla report as clarified in the

disclaimer and therefore it is imperative, that to

validate the claim, Ookla is also made a necessary

party.”


Confirmation email from agency on disclaimer

compliance and high res images, (2) Ookla India

market report on Ookla website, (3) Ookla certificate

dated October 19, 2020, (4) Terms & Conditions on

their website, (5) Ookla methodology documents, (6)

Copy of print Ad, Bus shelter image.







opinion. The advertiser did not opt for an IR but

sought for a meeting with the technical expert, which

was arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.

In response to the expert opinion, the advertiser

stated that “the claims made are basis the Ookla

methodology adopted by brands, agencies etc in

multiple countries across the globe and further

clarify that it is not just a numerical comparison but

also validated through scientific method as indicated

& detailed in the attached document (Annexure A).

They are making the claim basis Ookla and not basis

Open signal or TRAI reports, which may vary in the

methodology and design. And shouldn’t be used to

evaluate their claim. Vi is also the ‘Fastest 4G of

India’ even as per the Open signal report that the

expert has quoted (excerpt attached as Annexure B -

the table with 4G & 3G speeds from the open signal

report). With regard to the Mumbai claim, the data

on open signal report that the expert has quoted

doesn’t seem to report the scores at 4G level and

hence cannot be considered since their claim is based

on 4G technology only.”


technical expert, the advertiser responded providing

additional information that the technical expert had

requested, and a detailed methodology of the study.



Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) to consider.

The CCC viewed the Ad – Hoarding and the print

advertisement and considered the advertiser’s

response as well as the opinion of the Technical

expert presented at the meeting. The CCC observed

that the said claim was qualified with a disclaimer,

“Based on analysis by Ookla® of Speedtest

Intelligence ® data of average 4G download speeds

on 5G/4G LTE devices in India, Maharashtra,

Mumbai for Q3 2020. Ookla trademarks used under

license and reprinted with permission. For more

details visit www.myvi.in”. The advertiser stated

that they have complied with the ASCI Code on


disclaimer requirements and also provided an email

from their advertising agency confirming the font

size of the disclaimer as per ASCI requirements.

Further the advertiser has also provided a Report by

Ookla global leader in internet testing to substantiate

its claim and details to represent that the disclaimer

was referred to and explicitly stated at various public

platform including their website. The CCC was of the

view that the Ookla data is a standard industry data

which the internet service providers are using, it is

district based since Ookla seems to be a provider to

TRAI and it is a reliable source. The Ookla data

supports the claim made and the disclaimer clearly

clarifies the main claim.

Based on these observations, by majority, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “Mumbai Ka, Maharashtra

Ka, India ka Fastest 4G Giganet”, was not

objectionable and hence not in contravention of

Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was

NOT UPHELD.

94. # 2012-C.2329 Matrimony.com Ltd (*)

(Gujaratimatrimony.com)

MEDIUM: Website Advertisements

YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2EB_r3QiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucleFP-KH3w)


Complaint:

1. CLAIM CHALLENGED: The Advertiser’s

Claim - The No. 1 & Most Trusted Matrimony

Service for Gujaratis (“Claim”) and the

Advertisements which have been in circulation

since January 2019 and the claims on its

website(s) are in violation of the following ASCI

Codes.

2. We draw your attention to the following

provisions of the ASCI code which are blatantly

and knowingly being violated by the impugned

Advertisements and Claim being made by the

Advertiser:

ASCI CODE PROVISIONS VIOLATED:

Awards/Rankings should not be used as an

alternative for consumer or scientific

research or testing which is required to

substantiate a superiority claim about the

effective use or performance of products or

services. Advertisements that refer to

awards/rankings should indicate clearly the

name of the organisation that has provided

the award/ranking and the month and year in

which the award/ranking was pronounced.

The validity of the award/ranking so used to

substantiate a claim should be of a period

preceding the advertisement by not more

than 12 months.

Advertisement shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumer by means of

implications or omissions. Advertisements

shall not contain statements or visual

presentation which directly or by

implication or by omission or by ambiguity

or by exaggeration are likely to mislead the

consumer about the product advertised or

the advertiser or about any other product or

advertiser.

Advertisement shall not be framed as to

abuse the trust of consumers or exploit their

lack of experience or knowledge. No

advertisement shall be permitted to contain

any claim so exaggerated as to lead to grave

or widespread disappointment in the minds

of consumers.

3. THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE are, in

order to sustain a claim relating to an

award/ranking of a product/service, consumer or

scientific research is to be undertaken. Further,

an advertisement should clearly indicate the

name of the organization that has provided the

award/ranking and the year in which it was

pronounced. The ASCI Code further goes on to

clarify that the validity of the award/ranking

should be of a period preceding the

advertisement by not more than 12 months.

4. MEDIUM OF ADVERTISEMENTS:

Advertisements circulating on the YouTube

channel of the Advertiser indicates that its Claim

isthat it is ‘The No. 1 & Most Trusted

Matrimony Service for Gujaratis’. Further, the

website of the Advertiser also depicts this Claim

ofthe Advertiser.

5. Youtube links of the

advertisements: https://www.youtube.com/watch

?v=tO2EB_r3QiU, https://www.youtube.com/wa

tch?v=ucleFP-KH3w

6. Website link of the Advertiser:

https://www.gujaratimatrimony.com/

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucleFP-KH3w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2EB_r3QiU








Advertiser in their response stated that “They have

also provided Google keyword search Volume report

using various combination of keywords which clearly

establishes the No.1 position of Gujarati Matrimony.

They are now providing Google trends report

comparing all the possible usage of keywords for

Gujarat, India and Worldwide from 15th Dec 2019 to

23rd August 2020. Google keyword search Volume

report comparing all the possible combination of

keywords for Gujarat, India and all locations from

Nov 2019 to Oct 2020. Attached the Google trends

comparison between all the possible usage of

keywords Gujarati Matrimony and Gujarati Shaadi

for the period 15th Dec 2019 to 23rd August 2020

which clearly shows that Gujarati Matrimony is

popular than Gujarati Shaadi.”


Gujarati- Google Search Volume Report- Dec 15

2020, (2) Gujarati- Google Trends ppt- Dec 15 2020,

(3) Gujarati matrimony- Google Trend URL- Dec 15

2020-r




support the claim. Advertiser did not submit the

required data within the given timelines. Hence the

advertiser’s response with the supporting data was

placed before the CCC for their deliberation.


the Website advertisement

(https://www.gujaratimatrimony.com/) and the

YouTube advertisements

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2EB_r3QiU,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucleFP-KH3w)

and considered the advertiser’s response.


search engines as well, Google is one of such search

engines which is most likely to be used by the users

worldwide as a search engine. In digital marketing

the evaluation of websites, blogs is more of




not a third party platform and that it provides

research data only for the searches that are made

through Google.

In addition, the CCC felt that the Google analytic

data is by itself not sufficient evidence to support the

claim, and did not consider this data as acceptable as

it is only search data which does not make the

advertiser’s brand/service as No.1 and most trusted.

The advertiser can claim themselves to be `No.1

search brand’ but not `No.1 and most trusted’. The

revenue figures and the profit figures quoted in the



according to the CCC, websites with lesser number of

searches could have higher revenues. For claiming to

be No.1, the volume of search interest does not

suffice, instead the number of individuals registered

with the website should be given weightage.

Advertiser relied on data which was available on

Google trend, and the advertiser did not provide a

certification by an independent third party to validate

the data of being `No.1 and most trusted’ matrimony

service for Gujaratis. Data from Google trend is not

sufficient to prove the claim as the same cannot be

construed as a third party. The parameter they have

used to claim No.1 and most trusted does not justify

the claim made and is not recognised for a claim of

this nature. They have not used the correct data to

make an appropriate claim.



Service for Gujaratis” was inadequately substantiated










For the objection raised against the use of the

Celebrity (Mahendra Singh Dhoni) in the

advertisement, 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 descriptions, claims

and comparisons made in the advertisements are

capable of substantiation. This contravenes Clauses

(c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in

Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.

95. OC 2012-C.2388 Vize Health & Hygiene Pvt.

Ltd. – (Vize alcohol disinfectant hand

santitizer)

MEDIUM: Twitter Advertisement

(https://twitter.com/imVkohli/status/1328219259135

115264?s=20)


Claims objected to:

1. Offer 99.9% germ protection without drying your

skin

2. Recommended By Indian Medical Academy.





Complaint:

“I have noticed the following advertisement in the

following tweet of Vize Care and Mr.Virat

Kohli. https://twitter.com/imVkohli/status/132821925

9135115264?s=20. The advt. reflects a

recommendation from Indian Medical Academy for

Preventive Health for Vize Care products. Why has

the Medical Academy recommended this product, a

sanitiser and on what basis, health study reports?

What benefits/USP has it seen over the other

products? What verification has Mr.ViratKohli done

before endorsing the products of Vize Care?

My objection is with Vize Care's claim of- "offering

99.9% germ protection without drying your skin" and

"Recommendation from Indian Medical Academy".

https://twitter.com/VizeCare/status/13296567133733

88802?s=20

What is the basis of both claims? The first claim is

very vague. Can Vize prove this? Secondly, on what

health reports and SOPs has Indian Medical

Academy given this recommendation? Why was Vize

selected? I am not doubting the

Academy's credentials but Vize is not even using

their full name: Indian Medical Academy for

Preventive Health, which is misrepresentation

(attached picture). Thirdly, has Mr.ViratKohli done

the due diligence before endorsing Vize Products?”







option to seek Informal Resolution (IR) of the

complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims

objected to in the advertisement, or alternately to

substantiate the claims with the required supporting

data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity

for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they

did not avail nor did they submit their written

response. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC)

noted that no response was received from the


complaint.

The CCC viewed the Twitter advertisement

(https://twitter.com/imVkohli/status/1328219259135

115264?s=20) and observed that the advertiser is

promoting their hand sanitizer product and has

claimed that the same `gives 99.9% protection from

germs’ and `recommended By Indian Medical

Academy’. However, the advertiser did not provide



details, scientific rationale, nor any technical test data

for the product claims.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Offer

99.9% germ protection without drying your skin”

was not substantiated with clinical evidence of

product efficacy. Claim, “Recommended By Indian

Medical Academy”, was not proven with supporting

evidence of the product being recommended by IMA.



consumers. The Twitter advertisement contravened



For the objection raised against the use of the

Celebrity (Virat Kohli) in the advertisement and

product packaging, 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 descriptions, claims

and comparisons made in the advertisement are

capable of substantiation. This contravenes Clauses

(c), (d) of the ASCI Guidelines for Celebrities in

Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.

96. Suo Motu 2012-C.2389 Vedanta Limited

(Cairn Oil & Gas)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Mumbai, (10.12.2020)


Claim objected to:

“How did Barmer, in Rajasthan, increase its per

capita income by 650%?”

Objection:

The above claim implies that the credit for rise in

income seems to be self-attributed by Vedanta.















https://twitter.com/imVkohli/status/1328219259135115264?s=20


https://twitter.com/VizeCare/status/1329656713373388802?s=20

https://twitter.com/VizeCare/status/1329656713373388802?s=20





observed that the advertiser is a mining company

based in India, with its main operations in iron ore,

gold and aluminium mines in Goa, Karnataka,

Rajasthan and Odisha. The CCC noted the said claim

carried a disclaimer to mention “Source (August

2019)

(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/barm

ers-per-capita-income-has-risen-by-650-in

10yrs/articleshow/70900748.cms)”

The Weblink mentioned in the disclaimer carried an

article about views expressed by Chief Minister of

Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, who was addressing an

event organised on the 10th Anniversary of the oil

exploration by cairn India in Barmer. He spoke about

the oil exploration by Cairn India in Barmer and that

Cairn India contributed 24% oil to the country.

Further in the article it was also stated that, with the

oil exploration, the per capita income of Barmer

increased by 650% in 10 years.


the absence of any response from the Advertiser, the

CCC was of the view that the details or data on the

web article was not adequate to substantiate such

claim as the same was not authenticated or verified

data. The advertiser’s claim, “How did Barmer, in

Rajasthan, increase its per capita income by 650%?”

indirectly indicated that the advertiser’s oil

exploration company in Barmer is the reason for

Barmer’s increase in income which lead to the

growth in the per capita income of Rajasthan. The

advertiser did not provide any data with respect to

their contribution in the per capita income of Barmer

and the statistical data to prove the same. While the

per capita income of Barmer may have increased by

650% in 10 years, the advertiser must indicate their

contribution in the same, as there are many factors

which are to be considered while calculating the per

capita income of any region/ state or country. The

CCC concluded that the claim, “How did Barmer, in

Rajasthan, increase its per capita income by 650%?”,

was not substantiated. The claim is misleading by

implication that the credit for rise in income seems to

be self-attributed by Vedanta. The print

advertisement contravened the Chapters 1.1 and 1.4

of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD

97. W SPI 2012-C.2391 Versing solutions

(Tami Pro - Live Stream, Live Video & Live

Show)

MEDIUM: Mobile Application


“Hi. I have an complaint against an social media app

in their video advertisement they show womens

removing their cloth and showing their body parts

app name is tami pro I have seen this ads on mobile

apps which I use and these ads are given by Google

(because any apps which is downloaded from play

store, to run advertisements on them businesses need

to approach Google ads). I also have proof of vulgar

advertisement in the form of video”




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 option to seek Informal Resolution (IR) of

the complaint by withdrawing the visuals/claims

objected to in the advertisement. The advertiser was







Given the nature of the complaint with the objections

raised and the advertisement complained against, the

complaint was processed under Suspension Pending

Investigation (SPI) Process.

The CCC viewed the social media advertisement

video provided by the Complainant and observed that

the advertiser was promoting its social media app

which had clips of certain obscene actions by the

women in the advertisement. Though the exact

source with regard to the platform at which the

advertisement was presented was not identified the

CCC discussed that the advertisement was offensive

to generally acceptable standards of public decency.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the advertisement

had indecent and repulsive content, which in the light

of the generally prevailing standards of decency is

likely to cause grave and widespread offence to

women. The mobile application advertisement

contravened Chapter II of the ASCI Code. This


NAMS Complaints:

98. @ 2011-C.1714 Tantia University

MEDIUM: Times of India(*),Jaipur Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/barmers-per-capita-income-has-risen-by-650-in%2010yrs/articleshow/70900748.cms




“100% Government Placements”
















observed that the advertiser’s university is providing

courses in various field such as Medical, Ayurveda,

engineering, Homeopathy etc. The advertiser is

claiming to provide 100% Government Placements.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Government

Placements” was not substantiated with authentic




















in Advertising. This complaint was UPHELD.

99. @ 2012-C.1716 Daswani Classes Limited-

Daswani Classes

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jaipur Edition, Main

Issue, (English), (30.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“India's most popular faculty who has produced more

than 20,000 doctors.”
















observed that the advertiser’s classes is providing

coaching for NEET. Upon careful consideration of



claim, “India's most popular faculty who has

produced more than 20,000 doctors.” was not



coaching classes versus other coaching classes in

India, to prove that they have India’s most popular

faculty, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation.







100. @ 2012-C.1748 AKS University

MEDIUM: Dainik Jagran(*), Rewa Edition, Main

Issue, (English),(06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job to the passed out students- B. Tech

(Cement Tech)”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:

















coaching for B. Tech (Cement Tech).



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job to the

passed out students- B. Tech (Cement Tech)” was not














placed class.





and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of



101. @ 2012-C.1815 Alakh Prakash Goyal Shimla

University

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Dharamsala Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Job Assured Courses”

















coaching for Diploma in fashion design, B.Sc in

apparel production and management/ fashion design.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Job Assured

Courses” was not substantiated with authentic





















102. @ 2012-C.1835 Sharda Group of Institutions-

Hindustan College of Science & Technology

(HCST)

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*),Nainital Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Awarded Best Technical school of North India &

Best Placement & Industry Interface by

ASSOCHAM India”

















observed that the advertiser is claiming be `awarded

as Best Technical school of North India & Best

Placement & Industry Interface by ASSOCHAM

India’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Awarded Best

Technical school of North India & Best Placement &

Industry Interface by ASSOCHAM India” was not





engineering colleges in North India that were part of

the survey and the outcome of the survey, and the

details of the awarding body. The source for the





advertisement contravened Guidelines for





103. @ 2012-C.1856 Audisankara Group of

Institutions-Audisankara Polytechnic College

MEDIUM: EP Sakshi, Nellore Edition, Supplement,

Sakshi 24 7 SPSR Nellore, (English), (28.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assurance”

















Diploma courses. The advertiser is claiming to

provide 100% Placement Assurance.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement

Assurance” was not substantiated with authentic





















104. @ 2012-C.1943 Srajan College of Design

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Jalgaon Edition,

Supplement Jalgaon Today, (Marathi), (28.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job & employment to students till date”






withdrawing the Claim objected to in the












degree and diploma courses in field of animation

gaming design, visual effects, photography etc. The

advertiser is claiming that they have provided 100%

Job & employment to students till date.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job &

employment to students till date” was not














placed class.





and Programs and Chapter I-Clause 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for

Disclaimers in Advertising. This complaint was

UPHELD.

105. @ 2012-C.1949 Shri Rawatpura Sarkar

Institutions

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran (*), Jhansi Edition,

Main Issue, (English), (02.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Most Trusted Institution in Bundelkhand Region”






withdrawing the Claim objected to in the











coaching for B.Pharma, B.Tech, D.Pharma,

M.Pharma, B.Sc (Nursing) etc. The advertiser is

claiming to be the Most Trusted Institution in

Bundelkhand Region.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Most Trusted

Institution in Bundelkhand Region” was not



Institution versus other similar institutions in

Bundelkhand region, to prove that they are most

trusted institution, nor the claim was backed by a








106. @ 2012-C.1962 The Diocesan Technical

Education Trust-St. Joseph’s College of

Engineering and Technology

MEDIUM: EP Malayala Manorama (*), Kochi

Edition, Main Issue, (English), (01.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Winner of the top performing IEDC award from

Kerala Startup Mission for 3 years

2. Recipient of the Kerala State AkshayaOorja Award

in Educational Institutions category






withdrawing the claims objected to:: in the












courses such as B.Tech, M.Tech, PhD, MBA, MCA.

The Advertiser is claiming be ‘awarded as Winner of

the top performing IEDC award from Kerala Startup

Mission for 3 years’ and has `received Kerala State

AkshayaOorja Award in Educational Institutions

category’.



CCC concluded that the claims, “Winner of the top

performing IEDC award from Kerala Startup Mission

for 3 years” and “Recipient of the Kerala State

AkshayaOorja Award in Educational Institutions

category”, were not substantiated with copy of the

award certificates, details of the process for awards



used, names of other engineering colleges that were

part of the survey and the outcome of the survey, and

the details of the awarding body. The source for the








Code, Guidelines for Usage of Awards/ Rankings in


107. @ 2012-C.2004 Baluni Classes

MEDIUM: EP DainikJagran(*), Agra Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi) (18.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Selection Guaranteed”

















medical and engineering entrance exams. The

advertiser is claiming 100% guaranteed selection of

their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Selection

Guaranteed”, was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data such as detailed list of students who

were selected for medical/ engineering entrance

exams including dropouts, evidence to support their

enrolment, their Contact details for verification, or

independent audit or verification certificate.





and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


108. @ 2012-C.2005 Jai AmbeShikhsa Academy-

Drishti (The Vision) Institute of Hotel

Management

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Nainital Edition,



Claim objected to:


















Hotel Management course. The advertiser is claiming

to provide 100% Placement to their students.


















placed class.








109. @ 2012-C.2008 Indian Institute of Tourism

and Travel Management


Main Issue, (Hindi), (11.10.2020)


Claim objected to:





Given the nature of the claim, the advertiser was


the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claim










coaching for course of MBA (Tourism & Travel

Management) and BBA (Tourism and Travel). The

advertiser is claiming to provide 100% Placement






getting jobs in relevant industry, the use of 100%







The Print advertisement contravened Guidelines for




110. @ 2012-C.2010 Vidyamandir Classes

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Jamshedpur

Edition, Main Issue, (English) (11.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Rapid Success Course-Learn from best teachers

(founders + senior faculties)

2. VIQ (Vidyamandir Intellect Quest)-To be among

the topper; Join VMC, To Join VMC; Test your

intellect for the Biggest Test of the year by VMC

















coaching for JEE/ NEET. Upon careful consideration



claims, “Rapid Success Course-Learn from best

teachers (founders + senior faculties)”, and “VIQ

(Vidyamandir Intellect Quest)-To be among the

topper; Join VMC, To Join VMC; Test your intellect

for the Biggest Test of the year by VMC”, were not



Coaching Classes versus other Coaching Classes for

NEET/ JEE, to prove that they are better than the rest

in terms of faculty and that they are providing biggest

test of the year. The claims were not backed by a






contravened Guidelines for Advertising of


Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


111. @ 2012-C.2011 Florence Nightingale School

of Nursing, Ujjain

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Ujjain Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi), (21.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Hundred percent (shat-pratishat) Job Guarantee”
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is a nursing

school. The advertiser is claiming to provide 100%

job guarantee to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Hundred percent

(shat-pratishat) Job Guarantee”, was not





students who were placed through their Institute on













and Programs, as well as Chapter I-Clause 1.1, 1.4

and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for


explaining claims made in advertisements,. This


112. @ 2012-C.2012 Federal Institute of Hotel

Management

MEDIUM: Navbharat Times(*), New Delhi Edition,



Claim objected to:

















Hotel Management course along with various

international programs. The advertiser is claiming to

provide 100% Placement assistance to their students.












The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for




113. @ 2012-C.2013 Indian Institute of Fashion

Design (IIFD)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Shimla Edition, Main

Issue, (English),(20.10.2020)



Claims objected to:

1. 100% Job oriented Courses

2. Award Winning Design Institute
















observed that the advertiser’s institute is fashion &

design institute providing under graduate, post

graduate and diploma courses. The advertiser is

claiming to provide 100% job oriented courses to

their students.



CCC concluded that while the courses being offered

by the advertiser may be job oriented, the use of

100% numerical is not relevant for “job oriented

courses” 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 students.

The claim, “Award Winning Design Institute” was

not substantiated with copy of the award certificate,




fashion & designing institutes/ organizations in India


survey, and details about the awarding body. The

source of the claim was not mentioned in the

advertisement.









114. @ 2011-C.2022 JIET Group of Institutions-

Jodhpur Institute of Engineering

&Technology




Claim objected to:

“Rank 1st in The State By University” (3

rd time in a

row)”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







submitted their response.

Advertiser in their response stated that “JIET have

been “Ranked 1ST in The State by Bikaner Technical

University, Bikaner” in the Session 2018-19, 2019-20

and in 2020-21 as well (3rd time in a row) through

QIV (Quality Index Value) Ranking.”


QIV Certificate JIET_2019-20, (2) QIV_letter-2020-

21, (3) QIV_RANK LIST_2020-21, (4) QIV-

final_Engineering_2018-19.

Advertiser was further requested by the ASCI

Secretariat to provide a ranking list for year 19-20.







opinion. The advertiser did not opt for an IR and also

did not provide any additional data in response to the

expert opinion.





observed that according to the website of Bikaner

Technical University (BTU), it was established in

2017. The Technical Institutes of Bikaner Division,

Jodhpur Division, Ajmer Division (District Nagaur,

Ajmer), Jaipur Division (District Alwar, Sikar and

Jhunjhunu) are under the administrative and

academic control of BTU. However, BTU was set up

initially to share the workload of Rajasthan Technical

University (RTU) based in Kota. The web site of RTU

lists 74 Engineering colleges under its jurisdiction.

Thus while Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and


Technology may have been Ranked 1st by BTU,

which is with reference to academic institutions under

its jurisdiction, it is not completely clear that BTU

have complete jurisdiction over the State of

Rajasthan. In addition, there is no disclaimer

associated with the claim that provides information

on the body granting the Award. Till it is established

that BTU has full jurisdiction over the State of

Rajasthan, the advertiser should refrain from making

the said claim.


the claim, “Rank 1ST in The State By University”

(3rd time in a row)” was inadequately substantiated.




as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 of the ASCI

Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/

Rankings in Advertisements. This complaint was

UPHELD.

115. @ 2012-C.2025 NJR Foundation-Techno

India NJR Institute of Technology


Issue,(English) (02.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Most Trusted Engineering College in Udaipur”


The ASCI approached the advertiser for its response in

addressing the objection raised in the complaint. The













observed that the advertiser’s institute is claiming to

be the most trusted engineering college in Udaipur.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Most Trusted

Engineering College in Udaipur” was not



engineering college versus other engineering colleges

in Udaipur, to prove that they are most trusted

institute among the students, nor the claim was






as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.


116. @ 2012-C.2026 United Group of Institutions

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Allahabad Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. Most Preferred Engineering Institute of the Year -

North by ASSOCHAM India

2. Top Private Institution in North India for

Engineering By Jagran Josh







advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claims










various courses such as B.Tech, M.Tech, MBA, BBA

etc.



CCC concluded that the claims, “Most Preferred

Engineering Institute of the Year - North by

ASSOCHAM India” and “Top Private Institution in

North India for Engineering By Jagran Josh” were not





engineering institutes in North India that were part of

the survey and the outcome of the survey, and the

details of the awarding body. The source of the claims

was not mentioned in the advertisement.










117. @ 2012-C.2039 Aatmdeep Academy

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Gorakhpur Edition,

Main Issue, (Hindi),(30.09.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Join Best Online Education programme

2. Giving Best Rank in Gorakhpur in all competitive

exams continuously from the past 2 years

















coaching for IIT-JEE and NEET.



CCC concluded that the claims, “Join Best Online

Education programme” and “Giving Best Rank in

Gorakhpur in all competitive exams continuously

from the past 2 years” were not substantiated with

any market survey data or with verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s coaching classes versus other

Coaching Classes, to prove that they are better than

the rest in terms of providing online education

programme, and the results produced by their

students in all competitive exams are best in

Gorakhpur for past two years, nor the claims were

backed by a third party validation. The claims are







118. @ 2012-C.2040 ALLEN Career Institute

MEDIUM: Sambad,Sambalapur Edition, Main Issue,

(English), (09.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Best Academics Delivered Best Results

2. Allen Digital-Best Academics meet Best

Technology

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







requesting for an extension of five working days to

submit their written response.



immediate and widespread impact that advertisements

have on the public. Consequently, any action which is

needed to be taken with respect to the same is

required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this






extension of additional two business days to respond.

Advertiser did not submit their response by the

extended due date.



coaching for JEE exams. In the absence of claim

support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best

Academics Delivered Best Results” was not



institute versus other similar institutes to prove that

their institute’s better academics have delivered

better results than all the rest, nor the claim was

backed by an independent third party validation.

Claim, “Allen Digital-Best Academics meet Best

Technology”, was not substantiated with market

survey data or with verifiable comparative data of

their online (digital) coaching classes versus other

similar online classes to prove that their online

coaching platform’s better academics meets with

better technology than all the rest. The claim was not

backed by an independent third party validation.









119. @ 2012-C.2074 Fliplearn Education Pvt. Ltd

MEDIUM: Times of India(*),New Delhi Edition,

Supplement, Delhi Times, (English) (04.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. The Economic Times Bb “Best Brands 2020, 3rd

Edition

2. The Economic Times Bb “Best Brands 2020, 3rd

Edition
















observed that the advertiser is providing online

platform for the schools and teachers with features

such as live class conferencing, creating test papers

online etc.



CCC concluded that the claims, “The Economic

Times Bb “Best Brands 2020, 3rd Edition” and

“India's Award-Winning School Learning

Management System” were not substantiated with




questionnaires used, names of other online

platforms/institutes that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey and the details of awarding

body. The source of the claims was not mentioned in

the advertisement.









120. @ 2012-C.2075 G D Goenka University

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Faridabad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“G D Goenka University-Best University in

Pharmacy by National Education Awards 2018(ABP

News)”
















observed that the advertiser is providing B.Pharma,

D.Pharma courses as well as other under/ post

graduate programmes.



CCC concluded that the claim, “G D Goenka

University-Best University in Pharmacy by National

Education Awards 2018(ABP News)” was not





institutes/universities that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and details of the awarding

body. The source of the claim was not mentioned in

the advertisement.










121. @ 2012-C.2076 Chouksey Group of Colleges

MEDIUM: EP NaiDuniya(*),Bilaspur Edition,

Supplement, Bilaspur City,(English),(13.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Placement

2. Best Educational Group in CG by CM

BhupeshBaghelji in 2019

3. Awarded as Best Emerging College in Central

India by Prof. R. Hariharan (AICTE Adviser) CEGR

New Delhi in 2020
















observed that the advertiser is offering courses such

as B.Tech, M.Tech, MBA etc.

















placed class.

The claims, “Best Educational Group in CG by CM

Bhupesh Baghelji in 2019” and “Awarded as Best

Emerging College in Central India by Prof. R.

Hariharan (AICTE Adviser) CEGR New Delhi in

2020” were not substantiated with copy of the award

certificates, details of the process for awards



used, names of other institutes/colleges that were part

of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the

details of the awarding body.





Educational Institutions and Programs, Guidelines for

Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements as

well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code

and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.


122. @ 2012-C.2078 Ruben Group of Educational

Institutions-Ruben College of Arts and

Science

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Nagercoil Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Best college, Best Education…come and join with

us”
















that the advertiser’s college is offering courses such as

B.Com, B.Sc Comp. Sci, B.Sc Maths etc.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best college, Best

Education…come and join with us” was not



versus other colleges offering similar courses, to










123. @ 2012-C.2079 Aakash Educational Services

Ltd-Aakash Medical IIT-JEE Foundations

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Kolkata Edition Main


ADVERTISING AGENCY: Mechbrain India Pvt

Ltd


Claim objected to:

“Aakash Institute Ranked No.1coaching institute for

Medical/NEE preparation (India Today)”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:






further guidance, which they did not avail of but


Advertiser stated that “they have released this

advertisement as per the MDRA survey report done

and published by the India Today Print Magazine :

“Aakash Institute Ranked No.1 coaching institute for

Medical /NEET preparation (India Today)”. The

above-noted terms were published and used by India

Today Print Magazine as per their MDRA Survey as

mentioned in Print Magazine. Attached India Today

issue which has the details of the MDRA Survey

Report. The magazine issue clearly mentions the

name of the Market Research agency which has

carried out the survey/research along with the

Methodology used.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided copy

of India Today Rankings 2020.



advertiser’s response with the supporting data

provided by them. The CCC reviewed the India

Today-MDRA survey report published in India Today

of September 7, 2020 issue and observed that under

the section `Ranks and Scores of Coaching Institutes

for NEET’, in the overall rank 2020, the advertiser’

institute was listed as No.1 with a total score of 993.0

out of 1000. This proved that they were in leadership

position (No.1) for ranking than all the other

institutes that were part of the survey. The data also

showed that they were ranked No.1 in 2019 also.



claim, “Aakash Institute Ranked No.1coaching

institute for Medical/NEE preparation (India Today)”

was substantiated. The print advertisement is not in

contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code, ASCI


Advertisements, and ASCI Guidelines for

Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs.

This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

However, the CCC recommended that the advertiser

should be advised to mention the source and date of

the research for the claim in the advertisement.

124. @ 2012-C.2080 Dr. M.G.R. Educational and

Research Institute

MEDIUM: EP Dinamalar, Chennai Edition Main



Claim objected to:

“WCRC Award-Asia's Fastest Growing Private

Education Institute”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “they have obtained WCRC

Award in the year 2015. Believing bonafiedly that it

can be used even now they have published the same

in their advertisement. If ASCI objects the using of

their logo WCRC Award they assure that they will

withdraw the said logo from their advertisement and

not to use the same in the future advertisements.”

As the advertiser agreed to withdraw the award

related claim, ASCI Secretariat offered them an

option of IR of the complaint, to which no response

was received from the advertiser within the given

timelines.




advertiser is providing coaching for various courses

such as M.B.B.S, B.Tech, MBA, B.Com etc. The

advertiser is claiming to be awarded the WCRC

Award-Asia's Fastest Growing Private Education

Institute. The award was given to the advertiser’s


institute in 2015, which is over 2 years old. The year

of the award was not mentioned in the advertisement.

The CCC considered this data of year 2015 to be

outdated since it did not correspond to the current

year (2020) or the year prior (2019).

Also, the advertiser did not provide a copy of the

award certificate, reference of the award received, the

year, source, the basis of the award or the survey

methodology followed to obtain this information for

the award claimed, such as the category, the basis of

the award such as the details of the process as to how

the selection for the award was done, details of the

criteria for granting the award, parameters considered,

questionnaires used, names of other institutes that

were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey,

and the details of the awarding body. The source for



the claim, “WCRC Award-Asia's Fastest Growing

Private Education Institute” was not substantiated.


to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of



and Programs, ASCI Guidelines for Usage of

Awards/Rankings in Advertisements, and Chapters

1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


125. @ 2012-C.2081 Galgotias University

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Kanpur Edition Main



Claim objected to:

“Awarded the QS Ranking for E-learning Excellence

for Academic Digitisation”

















courses such as B.A., LL.B (Hons), LLM etc.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Awarded the QS

Ranking for E-learning Excellence for Academic

Digitisation” was not substantiated with copy of the

award certificate, details of the process for award

selection, criteria for granting the award, survey


used, names of other law institutes/ organizations

providing similar courses that were part of the survey,

the outcome of the survey and the details of the

awarding body. The source of the claim was not






and Programs, Guidelines for Usage of




126. @ 2012-C.2083 Pearl Academy

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), New DelhiEdition,

Supplement Education Times, (English),

(05.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. India's No.1 Private Design & Fashion College*,

Recognised by ASSOCHAM, India Today, Outlook

and the Week

2. 99% Placements with top recruiters such as IBM,

Amazon, H&M and Vogue
















that the advertiser’s college is offering post graduate

programs in design, fashion, business and media.




CCC concluded that the claim, “India's No.1 Private

Design & Fashion College*, Recognised by

ASSOCHAM, India Today, Outlook and the Week”





other fashion & design institutes providing similar

courses that were part of the survey, the outcome of

the survey, and the details of the awarding body. The


advertisement.

The claim, “99% Placements with top recruiters such

as IBM, Amazon, H&M and Vogue” was not


batch size of students per year, detailed list of students

and evidence to support their enrolment, contact

details of students for verification, list of students

who were placed through their Institute in relevant

industries on completion of their courses, their








placed class.





Educational Institutions and Programs, Guidelines for

Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements as well

as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and




127. @ 2012-C.2084 Geetanjali Institute of

Technical Studies

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), New Udaipur



Claim objected to:

“1st choice of Meritorious Students for B.Tech.”
















that the advertiser’s institute is offering courses such

as B.Tech, M.Tech, MCA, MBA, Ph.D.



CCC concluded that the claim, “1st choice of

Meritorious Students for B.Tech.” was not


advertiser’s institute and other similar Institutes, to

prove that they are first choice among the students for

B.Tech, or through an independent third party

validation.







128. @ 2012-C.2085 The American College

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Madurai Edition, Main

Issue, (Tamil),(27.09.2020)


Claim objected to:

“UGC Recognized B.voc, degree, Bachelors in

Vocational Education Degree with 100% Job

Opportunity.”






the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the

claims objected to in the advertisement. The advertiser

was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the









various courses such as B.Voc Aquaculture, B.Voc

Medical Lab Technology, B.Voc Data Science,

B.Voc Horticulture etc.




providing job opportunity to their students for getting

jobs in relevant industry sectors, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “UGC Recognized

B.voc, degree, Bachelors in Vocational Education

Degree with 100% Job Opportunity” claim. There

cannot be a percentage assigned to any opportunity

claim such as 40% or 80% opportunity. The use of








129. @ 2012-C.2086 S.S. Ganpatrao Degree

College of Administrative Services

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat,Solapur Edition, Supplement,

Hello Solapur, (Marathi), (13.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Due to this study, students are getting completely

prepared for competitive exams after 12th and in

during their degree course which saves money and

gives 100 % Government Job Guarantee”

















coaching for government exams including IAS, IPS,

IRS. Upon careful consideration of the complaint and

in the absence of any response from the advertiser,

the CCC concluded that the claim, “Due to this study,

students are getting completely prepared for

competitive exams after 12th and in during their

degree course which saves money and gives 100 %

Government Job Guarantee” was not substantiated





placed in government offices/ industries on



for their non-placement, or independent audit or











Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the

ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers made

in supporting, limiting or explaining claims made in


130. @ 2012-C.2087 Rustamji Institute

of Technology (RJIT)

MEDIUM: EP DainikBhaskar(*), Sagar Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Excellent institute awarded by RGPV.”
















that the advertiser’s institute is offering courses such

as B.Tech, M.Tech, MCA.




CCC concluded that the claim, “Excellent institute

awarded by RGPV.” was not substantiated with copy

of the award certificate, details of the process for

award selection, criteria for granting the award,


questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes


survey, and the details of the awarding body. The


advertisement.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Excellent institute

awarded by RGPV.” was not substantiated with copy

of the award certificate, details of the process for

award selection, criteria for granting the award,


questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes


survey, and the details of the awarding body. The


advertisement.

131. @ 2012-C.2088 Hindusthan Educational &

Charitable Trust -Hindusthan Educational

Institutions

MEDIUM: Deshabhimani, Kozhikode Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Get the Best in Everything-Education/Ethics and

Excellence”

















courses in various fields such as Arts & Science,

Engineering & Technology, and Health Science etc.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Get the Best in

Everything-Education/Ethics and Excellence” was


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute

versus other institutes providing similar courses, to









132. @ 2012-C.2090 Delhi Institute of Medical

Representative (DIMR)

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Bhilwara Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. 100% Job Guarantee

2. DIMR (Delhi Institute of Medical Representative

Awarded by Devang Mehta Business School)

















medical representative training to their students. The

advertiser is claiming to provide 100% job guarantee

to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Job

Guarantee” was not substantiated with authentic

supporting data such as batch size of students per year,




institute on completion of their courses, their









placed class.

Claim, “DIMR (Delhi Institute of Medical

Representative Awarded by Devang Mehta Business

School” was not substantiated with copy of the award




other similar institutes/ organizations that were part

of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the

details of the awarding body. The source for the claim









Advertisements, and ASCI Guidelines for




133. @ 2012-C.2171 CIIM-Chandigarh Institute

of Internet Marketing


(http://recruitment.guru) (English) (27.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“#1 Digital Marketing Course”

















advertiser’s institute is offering digital marketing

course.



CCC concluded that the claim, “#1 Digital Marketing

Course” was not substantiated with verifiable


other similar institutes, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) for Digital Marketing

Course, or through an independent third party

validation.



CCC concluded that the claim, “#1 Digital Marketing

Course” was not substantiated with verifiable


other similar institutes, to prove that they are in

leadership position (No.1) for Digital Marketing

Course, or through an independent third party

validation.

134. @ 2012-C.2172 Digital Marketing Training

Institute-Digital Ready




Claim objected to:

"Get 100% Placement Assurance”
















(http://freshersworld.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing digital marketing

training to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, "Get 100% Placement


supporting data such as batch size of students per year,






Institute in relevant industries on completion of their














Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and

ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising. This


135. @ 2012-C.2173 Digital Marketing Academy

India




Claims objected to:

1. Best Classroom Training

2. With 100% Placement Assistance
















(http://freshersworld.com) and observed that the


training to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Classroom

Training” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s academy versus other digital marketing

academies, to prove that they provide better

classroom training than the rest, nor the claim was


The CCC also deliberated that, while the advertiser

may be providing placement assistance to their

students for getting jobs in digital marketing industry,


“Placement Assistance” claim. There cannot be a





the minds of students. The digital display



as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.


136. @ 2012-C.2174 CIIM-Chandigarh Institute

of Internet Marketing


(http://indiamart.com) (English) (28.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Job Placements”
















(http://indiamart.com) and observed that the


course to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, "100% Job

Placements” was not substantiated with authentic
























137. @ 2012-C.2175 Coding Blocks Pvt Ltd

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://bayt.com)

(English) (29.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Program”
















(http://bayt.com) and observed that the advertiser’s

institute is providing coaching for data structures

algorithms, basic C programs and non-coding topics

to their students.



CCC concluded that the claim, "100% Placement

Program” was not substantiated with authentic






their courses, their appointment letters, list of students













Chapter I-Clause 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code

and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers in Advertising.


138. @ 2012-C.2176 Coding Blocks Pvt Ltd

MEDIUM: Digital Display (http://java-

examples.com) (English) (30.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Assurance”
















(http://bayt.com) and observed that the advertiser’s

institute is providing Java interview training to their

students.










their courses, their appointment letters, list of students



http://java-/

http://java-/















139. @ 2012-C.2179 Echelon Institute

of Technology


(http://targetstudy.com) (English) (06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Assistance Good Academics”















(http://targetstudy.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is offering B.Tech course. The

advertiser is claiming to provide 100% placement






getting jobs in relevant industry, the use of 100%

numerical is not relevant for “Placement Assistance

Good Academics” claim. There cannot be a





the minds of students. The digital display

advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising

of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as



140. @ 2012-C.2217 ITM Vocational

University


(http://refinery29.com) (English) (26.10.2020)


Claim objected to:
















(http://refinery29.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s university is offering International

Hospitality & Tourism Management course. The

advertiser is claiming to provide 100% placement

















141. @ 2012-C.2218 Itvedant Education Pvt. Ltd.


(http://moneycontrol.com) (English) (29.10.2020)


http://targetstudy.com/


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Guarantee”
















(http://moneycontrol.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s institute is providing Java course in

Mumbai to their students.









their Institute on completion of their courses, their








placed class.









142. @ 2012-C.2219 C.V. Raman Global

University


(http://freejobalert.com) (English) (18.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

"100% Placement Guarantee”
















(http://freejobalert.com) and observed that the

advertiser’s university is claiming to provide

guaranteed placements to their students.









their University on completion of their courses, their








placed class.









143. @ 2012-C.2248 Anandi Atta Chakki Pvt

Ltd- Anandi Atta Chakki

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Satara Edition,

Supplement Satara Today (Marathi) (14.11.2020)



Claim objected to:

“The Highest Selling Flour Mill in India”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting flour mill.

The advertiser is claiming that their brand is the

highest selling flour mill in India.



CCC concluded that the claim, “The Highest Selling

Flour Mill in India” was not substantiated with any

sales data, market survey data or with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s brand versus

other flour mill brands in India, to prove that their

product is the highest selling flour mill, nor the claim







144. @ 2012-C.2271 The Workout Zone

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Agra Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Most Advance Gym in Agra with High Tech

Machines”


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Jagran

Prakashan Ltd) for their assistance in providing the


objection raised to the advertiser. The Consumer


was received from the advertiser or from the

concerned media prior to the due date. The CCC

viewed the print advertisement and observed that the

advertiser is running a Gym. The advertiser’s gym

offers various types of training including Zumba,

cardio etc.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Most Advance Gym

in Agra with High Tech Machines” was not


verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s gym

versus other gyms in Agra providing similar services,

to prove that the advertiser’s gym is the more

advanced than the other gyms with high tech

machines, nor the claim was backed by a third party






145. @ 2012-C.2303 Gawatre Hospital

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar, Akola Edition,

Supplement Akola Bhaskar (English)

(18.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Easy & Painless Delivery”
















that the advertiser is providing treatment for orthoptic

problem, joint replacement, maternity, fertility etc.


details of their treatment procedure for painless

delivery, nor any details regarding the medicines

used, and their approval status by the regulatory

authorities. In the absence of claim support data, the

CCC concluded that the claim, “Easy & Painless

Delivery”, was not substantiated with supporting

clinical evidence to prove that women delivered

children at their hospital without any other


intervention such as pain killers/ local anaesthesia or

epidural injections. The claim omits the modalities of

the delivery procedure. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers, especially

pregnant women. The print advertisement



146. @ 2012-C.2304 Tecno Mobile India-

Tecno SPARK 6 Air

MEDIUM: EP Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata



Claim objected to:

“Best Battery Smartphone”








Advertiser stated that “Before using the word “Best

Battery Smartphone” in the advertisement, we have

done extensive market research internally and assess

that no other mobile phone under the price of Rs.

10,000 categories have such massive Battery i.e.

6000 MAH with fast charge available in the market.

It is submitted that Tecno SPARK 6 Air Smartphone

when launched was the only smartphone with 6000

MAH battery with fast charge feature which made it

“Best Battery Smartphone” among all smartphone

below the price of Rs. 10,000 categories.”

As claim support data, the Advertiser provided a

report indicating research done by them internally.

The report shows the comparison chart of the

Advertiser’s 2 phones Spark power 2 Air & Spark 6

air (2+32GB) which shows that they were the only

smartphone with 6000 MAH battery capacity in the

given price range.


considered the advertiser’s response along with the

report provided by them. The CCC observed that the

claim was made on the basis of the price i.e. their

product had best battery among the mobile phones

having a price under INR 10,000/-, however, the

advertiser did not mention the price band in the

advertisement considering the claim was made based

on the price band. The advertisement did not provide

any disclaimer in this regard to bring forth proper

information to the consumers with respect to the

claim made.

The CCC also observed that the research report

provided by the advertiser was prepared internally

which included few models from some mobile brands

such as Xiaomi, Realme, Oppo, Vivo and Samsung.

The CCC concluded that considering the extensive

range that is available and offered by various brands

in the mobile technology domain, the internal

research report did not provide sufficient data to

decide whether the advertiser’s product has the best

battery or not, since, there can be a number of mobile

phones to compare with, under the price range of

INR 10,000/-.


the claim, “Best Battery Smartphone” was

inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading

by exaggeration and is likely to cause widespread


advertisement contravened the Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and


UPHELD.

147. @ 2012-C.2305 Indiabulls Real Estate

Limited- Indiabulls Mega Mall

MEDIUM: Rajasthan Patrika(*), Jodhpur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Jodhpur's Biggest Mall”
















observed that the advertiser was promoting its

shopping mall in Jodhpur.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Jodhpur's Biggest

Mall” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s mall versus other


shopping malls in Jodhpur, to prove that their mall is

bigger than all the rest, nor the claim was backed by a







148. @ 2012-C.2306 Magic Wings Centre

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Ujjain Edition, Main

Issue (Hindi) (04.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Reduce 5 kg Weight in Just 15 Days without the

use of any Harmful Medicine and Machine

2. Reduce weight in spite of all types of problems like

hypothyroid, gall bladder stone, kidney stone and

diabetes without any side effects
















observed that the advertiser is providing treatment for

weight loss without medicines, machine, without any

side effects, inspite of having other health problems

as claimed.


details of their treatment procedure for weight

reduction nor did they provide evidence of their

customers who achieved the claimed results of

reducing weight upto 5 Kgs in 15 days or even with

other health problems as claimed. In the absence of

claim support data, the CCC concluded that the

claims, “Reduce 5 kg Weight in Just 15 Days without

the use of any Harmful Medicine and Machine”, and

“Reduce weight in spite of all types of problems like

hypothyroid, gall bladder stone, kidney stone and

diabetes without any side effects”, were not

substantiated with supporting clinical evidence based

on rigorous trial on statistically significant number of

patients successfully treated at their clinic.






149. @ 2012-C.2336 Imayam Educational

Institutions-Imayam College of Engineering

MEDIUM: Dinakaran, Trichy Edition, Supplement

SPL Thozhil Malar, (Tabloid), (25.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

















observed that the advertiser is claiming to provide

placements to their students.



concluded that the claim, “100% Placement” was not




















Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs,





150. @ 2012-C.2337 Indian Academy Group of

Institutions-Indian Academy Degree College

(Autonomus)

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Bangalore Edition,

Supplement Education Times, (English),

(12.10.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


observed that the advertiser is promoting its

educational institute, an autonomous degree college.






not relevant for “Placement Assistance” claim. There










151. @ 2012-C.2338 Indian Institute of Carpet

Technology (IICT)




Claim objected to:

“100% Placement Track Record”








with the required supporting data. . The advertiser








observed that the advertiser is offering various

professional courses. Upon careful consideration of



“100% Placement Track Record” was not
























152. @ 2012-C.2339 Jayamatha Institute

of Aviation


MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Tirunelveli Edition, Main



Claim objected to:


CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “they meant 100% Placement

Assistance only and not 100% placement assurance.

Any how If this is against the norms of the ASCI, the

same will not be repeated in their future

advertisements.”

As the advertiser agreed to delete the claim in their

future advertisements, the advertiser was offered an

option of availing IR of the complaint. However, in

the absence of the advertiser’s response, the

complaint was placed before the CCC for their

deliberation.



advertiser’s response. The CCC concluded that while


to their students for getting jobs in relevant industries,


“Placement Assistance” claim. There cannot be a





the minds of students. The Print advertisement





The CCC noted the advertiser’s response that the said

claim will not be repeated in their future

advertisements.

153. @ 2012-C.2340 Khandelwal Group of

Institutions-Khandelwal College of

Management Science &Technology (KCMT)


Main Issue, (English),(23.10.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.


that the advertiser is promoting its educational

institute/ college in the field of engineering.
















154. @ 2012-C.2341 KVM Trust- KVM College

of Engineering & Information Technology

MEDIUM: EP Malayala Manorama(*) Alappuzha



Claim objected to:

“50% Scholarship & Placement Assured”















complaint.


that the advertiser is offering B.tech course in

computer sceince with 50% scholarship and

placement assurance.



concluded that the claim, “50% Scholarship &

Placement Assured” was not substantiated with





provided scholarship through the their college, list of






certificate.








155. @ 2012-C.2343 NAMS Ship Management

Pvt. Ltd.

MEDIUM: EP Lokmat, Mumbai Edition,

Supplement Hello Mumbai (English), (11.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Sponsorship available for above courses with 100%

Placement”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:








Advertiser stated that “they are a shipping company

providing sponsorship to candidates who are placed

by their company and for which each year they get an

audit conducted by D G SHIPPING GOVT OF

INDIA. They are unable to provide details of

placement done by them, however, the same can be

checked from D G SHIPPING GOVT OF INDIA.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided

Annual inspection report issued in April 2018 and

placement record from January 2019 till December

2020. They also informed that “2019 Annual Audit

was supposed to be conducted in April 2020,

however, due to COVID- 19 pandemic the same will

be done after COVID issues comes to normal.”




advertiser had provided list of candidates that were

placed by their company. However they did not

provide authentic supporting data such as batch size

of students per year, detailed list of students and



placed through their institute in relevant industry

sector on completion of their courses, their








placed class.


the claim, “Sponsorship available for above courses

with 100% Placement” was inadequately






and Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code, and




156. @ 2012-C.2344 National Institute of Design

and Technology-NIDT(School of Creativity

and Design)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Nagpur Edition,

Supplement Nagpur Bhaskar,(English),(15.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100%Job Placement Guarantee

2. 100% job Guarantee

















observed that the advertiser is promoting its institute

of design and technology in field of fashion

designing, interior designing, garment designing etc.



concluded that the claims, “100 Job Placement

Guarantee” and “100% Job Guarantee” were not




details of students for verification, list of students who

were placed through their institute in relevant

industry sectors and Fashion industry on completion


















157. @ 2012-C.2345 Northern Institute of

Engineering Technical Campus(NIET Alwar)

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Alwar Edition,

Supplement AlwarBhaskar,(English), (09.10.2020)


Claim objected to:















complaint.



educational institute in the field of engineering, and is

claiming to provide 100% Placement assistance.
















158. @ 2012-C.2346 Om Muruga College of Arts

and Science

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Salem Edition,

Supplement SPL Thozhil Malar (NP), (Tamil),

(24.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“100% Job Opportunity”








Advocate.

Advocate on behalf of the advertiser stated that “The


usage of “100%” is relevant for the “Job

Opportunity” claim. For instance, if they arrange 10

reputed companies to recruit a B.Com Degree holder

for the designation of ‘Accountant’ in their firms,

they will definitely allow the final year students who

are about to pass the said degree to participate the

interviews conducted by ALL the ten companies. In

other words they will provide 100% Job Opportunity

to the students i.e. allowing the students to

participate the interviews conducted by ALL the ten

invited companies. Whereas if they allow the Batch-1

& Batch-2 students to participate only five interviews

instead of ten interviews, only 50% job opportunity

will be given to Batch-1 & Batch-2 students

respectively. Hence there can be a percentage

assigned to any opportunity claim such as 50% or

80% opportunity.”


the print advertisement and considered the advocate’s

response. The CCC observed that the advertiser is

claiming to provide Job opportunity to their students.


the absence of satisfactory response from the

advertiser, the CCC concluded while the advertiser

may be providing Job Opportunity to their students,

the use of “100%” numerical claim is not relevant for

a “Job opportunity” claim. There cannot be a

percentage assigned to any opportunity claim such as

40% or 80% opportunity. The use of “100%” as a




contravened the ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of

Educational Institutions and Programs and Chapters


UPHELD.

159. @ 2012-C.2347 Pearl Academy




Claim objected to:

















observed that the advertiser is offering post-

graduation programs/ courses in design, fashion,

business and media.



concluded that the claim, “100% Job Assurance” was

not substantiated with authentic supporting data such

as batch size of students per year, detailed list of



students who were placed through their academy in



















160. @ 2012-C.2348 R. R. School and College of

Nursing

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), New Delhi Edition,

Supplement Jagran City, (English), (19.10.2020)


Claim objected to:



















nursing courses. Upon careful consideration of the








their college in the Healthcare industry on completion


















161. @ 2012-C.2349 RRM Group of Colleges-

Radhadevi Ramchandra Mangal School of

Management & Research

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), RatlamEdition, Main

Issue, (Hindi), (15.09.2020)


Claim objected to:









with the required supporting data. . The advertiser















were placed through their college in relevant industry









placed class.










162. @ 2012-C.2350 Mangalayatan

University, Jabalpur

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*), Jabalpur Edition,



Claim objected to:



















various professional courses.



concluded that the claim, “100% Job Assurance” was

not substantiated with authentic supporting data such

as batch size of students per year, detailed list of






















163. @ 2012-C.2351 Tagore Institute of

Engineering &Technology

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Salem Edition, Main

Issue, (Tamil), (14.10.2020)


Claim objected to:
























were placed through their institute in relevant

industry sectors on completion of their courses, their








placed class.










164. @ 2012-C.2353 Adina Group of Institutions

MEDIUM: Dainik Bhaskar(*),Sagar Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi), (14.10.2020)


Claims objected to:


2. India Rankings 2018 Rank #1 in M.P. Private

Pharmacy Colleges

3. Awarded as Best Institution in Academics in

Madhya Pradesh-CCLA Indian Education Leadership

Summit & Award 2017


















educational institution in field of engineering and

pharmacy.












students.

The claims, “India Rankings 2018 Rank #1 in M.P.

Private Pharmacy Colleges” and “Awarded as Best

Institution in Academics in Madhya Pradesh-CCLA

Indian Education Leadership Summit & Award

2017”, were not substantiated with a copy of the

awards certificate, details of the process for awards



used, names of other similar institutes that were part

of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details

of the awarding body. The source of the claims was not


The claims are misleading by exaggeration and is






and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1, I.2, 1.4 and


UPHELD.

165. @ 2012-C.2356 D. Y. Patil Education Society

(Deemed to be University), Kolhapur-D.Y.

Patil School of Hospitality

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Kolhapur Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Job Guarantee”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










avail but submitted their written response.

Advertiser stated that, “This is their second batch and

second year of D Y Patil School of Hospitality. In the

academic year 2019-20, 47 students were admitted to

the first year and in 2020-21, 34 have been admitted.

It is a commitment from the promoters that they

would absorb 100% students at their Hotel Sayaji by

giving them offer letters once they complete the 3

years degree course B.Sc. in Hospitality Studies.”

As the advertiser’s response had only assertions

about the claim, ASCI Secretariat requested the

advertiser to provide supporting data of students who

were offered jobs by them. Advertiser responded that

“they has been started in the academic year 2019-

2020. They will be in the process of doing placements

in the year 2022-2023. The B.Sc. (HS) programme is

of three years duration. Hence the information asked

for is not applicable right now. The term ‘100% Job

Guarantee’ was used with an intention to give Job

placements to all the passing students as the

promoters have their own Three-Star Luxury Hotel.”



advertiser’s response. The CCC observed that, since

the duration of the course offered by the advertiser’s

Institute is three years and the advertiser’s institute

has completed only two years, the advertiser cannot

provide 100% job guarantee to their students. The

CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for the

advertiser to have data for the claim made, since the

advertiser’s institute has completed only two years. It

was unlikely for the advertiser to have support data






B.Com Logistics courses, their appointment letters,



verification certificate, to substantiate the claim.


to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of

the students. The print advertisement contravened


Institutions and Programs and Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and


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

166. @ 2012-C.2357 Indra Institute of

Paramedical Sciences and Nursing College




Claim objected to:

“100% Placement in Health Department”


The ASCI approached the concerned Media (Jagran

Prakashan Ltd) for their assistance in providing 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.


that the advertiser is offering nursing and paramedical

courses. Upon careful consideration of the complaint,


the CCC concluded that the claim, “100% Placement

in Health Department” was not substantiated with





placed through their institute in healthcare industry

on completion of their courses, their appointment

letters, list of students who were not placed and the

reason for their non-placement, nor any independent

audit or verification certificate. Furthermore, the










the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

167. @ 2012-C.2360 Kamala Niketan Montessori

School

MEDIUM: Dinamalar, Trichy Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“British Council International School Award 2016-

2019”










telecom with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did

not avail nor did they submit their written response.






Montessori School and is claiming to have been

awarded with `British Council International School

Award 2016-2019’.



CCC concluded that the claim, “British Council

International School Award 2016-2019” was not

substantiated a copy of the award certificate, details

of the process for award selection, criteria for granting



similar schools that were part of the survey, the

outcome of the survey, and the details of the awarding


the advertisement. Based on the precedence of similar

complaints processed for this claim for other institutes,

the CCC expressed concern over the usage of an

accreditation presented as an award and for not

mentioning what the accreditation was for, in the

advertisement.





Institutions and Programs, Chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and

1.5 of the ASCI Code as well as ASCI Guidelines for

Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements. This


168. @ 2012-C.2361 Orane International School

of Beauty & Wellness

MEDIUM: EP Hindustan(*), Nainital Edition, Main

Issue, (Hindi), (30.10.2020)



Claims objected to:

1. 100% Job Oriented Courses

2. Awarded World’s Greatest Brands& Leaders in

Skill Training
















observed that the advertiser is offering beauty and

makeup courses. Upon careful consideration of the


advertiser, the CCC concluded that while the courses

being offered by the advertiser may be job oriented,

the use of 100% numerical is not relevant for “job

oriented courses” claim. The use of “100%” as a

descriptor in the claim is misleading by implication,

and is likely to lead to grave or widespread


The claim, “Awarded World’s Greatest Brands&

Leaders in Skill Training” was not substantiated with

a copy of the award certificate, details of the process

for award selection, criteria for granting the award,


questionnaires used, names of other similar institutes/

schools that were part of the survey, the outcome of

the survey, and the details of the awarding body. The


advertisement.







and Programs, as well as Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


169. @ 2012-C.2364 Prasad Group of

Institutions- Prasad Polytechnic, Jaunpur

MEDIUM: EP Amar Ujala(*), Varanasi Edition,



Claim objected to:

“100% Placements through Virtual Interview”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







that they would respond soon. However, the

advertiser did not submit their response prior to the


The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the

print advertisement and observed that the Advertiser’s

institute is providing coaching to their students in the

field of engineering.


the absence of claim support data, the CCC

concluded that the claim, “100% Placements through

Virtual Interview” was not substantiated with





placed through their Institute in relevant industry









placed class.



students. The print advertisement contravened the


Institutions and Programs, Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

of the ASCI Code, ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

170. @ 2012-C.2366 Sandip University

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), Ahmedabad Edition,

Supplement SPL Times Top Institutes, (English)

(09.10.2020)



Claim objected to:

“Sandip University proudly provides 100%

Placement assistance to all students each year

through annual placement drives”














complaint.


observed that the advertiser is claiming to provide

`100% Placement assistance to all students each year

through annual placement drives’.






not relevant for “…….proudly provides 100%

Placement assistance to all students each year

through annual placement drives” claim. There cannot

be a percentage assigned to any assistance claim such

as 40% or 80% assistance. The use of “100%” as a








171. @ 2012-C.2369 Sri Vivekananda Police

Academy

MEDIUM: EP Dinakaran, Pondicherry Edition,

Main Issue, (Tamil), (16.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Government Job In 50 Days! 100% Guarantee”

















police courses.



concluded that the claim, “Government Job In 50

Days! 100% Guarantee” was not substantiated with





placed through their academy in Government

companies / police departments on completion of














the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers



UPHELD.

172. @ 2012-C.2370 Sudharshana

Polytechnic College

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi,Trichy Edition,

Supplement SPL Thozhil Malar (TAB), (Tamil),

(25.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. 100% Job Opportunity

2. Job Opportunity Is Guaranteed
















The CCC viewed print advertisement and observed

that the advertiser is offering various professional

courses.




job opportunity to their students for getting jobs in

relevant industry sectors, the use of 100% numerical

is not relevant for “Job Opportunity” claim. There

cannot be a percentage assigned to any opportunity

claim such as 40% or 80% opportunity. The use of




Claim, “Job Opportunity is Guaranteed” was not




details of students for verification, list of students

who were placed through their college in relevant

industry sectors on completion of their courses, their








placed class. The claim is misleading by exaggeration


the minds of consumers including students.

The print advertisement contravened ASCI Guidelines




advertisements, as well as Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of


173. @ 2012-C.2371 The NEET School

MEDIUM: EP Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata

Edition, Main Issue, (Bengali), (13.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“We won’t promise AIR 3.7.11.,55,191,211 or any

other number…But will GUARANTEE confirmed

selection in a GOVERNMENT MEDICAL

COLLEGE”
















that the advertiser is providing coaching for NEET

exams, and is claiming to give confirmed selection in

a Government Medical College.



concluded that the claim, “We won’t promise AIR

3.7.11.,55,191,211 or any other number…But will

GUARANTEE confirmed selection in a

GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE”, was not

substantiated with detailed list of students who

achieved success in NEET exams were selected in

Government medical college, evidence to support

their enrolment, and their contact details for

independent verification by ASCI. The claim was


validation.







174. @ 2012-C.2372 TIPS Eduvision

MEDIUM: Daily Thanthi, Erode Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Achievements in NEET & JEE since 3 years- 100%


of our NEET aspirants have cleared the NEET exam”








Advertiser provided information with respect to the

total number of students who cleared NEET exams in

2018, 2019 and 2020.

As this response being inadequate, ASCI Secretariat

requested the advertiser to provide evidence of

students who had cleared the NEET exams. As the

advertiser did not submit this data within the given

timelines, the complaint was processed for CCC

deliberation.



observed that the advertiser’s response had only

assertions about their claim. In the absence of claim

support data, the CCC concluded that the claim

“Achievements in NEET & JEE since 3 years- 100%

of our NEET aspirants have cleared the NEET

exam”, was inadequately substantiated with authentic

supporting data such as detailed list of students for the

last 3 years who had achieved success in NEET and

JEE exams, and had cleared NEET exams, evidence

to support their enrollment, contact details of students

for independent verification, nor the claim was backed

by an independent third party validation.



students. The print advertisement contravened the


Institutions and Programs and Chapters 1.1, 1.4 and


UPHELD.

AYUSH Complaints:

175. @ 2012-C.2321 Yogi Ayurveda – Fat Attack

MEDIUM: Punjab Kesari, Chandigarh

Edition, Main Issue (Hindi) (21.10.2020)


Claims objected to:

1. Reduce Weight

2. 100% Result Oriented

3. No Diet, No Exercise
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a capsule/

ayurvedic supplement to reduce fats. The advertiser

also claims that the supplements are 100% result

oriented without any diet or exercise. However, the

advertiser did not submit any product specific details

such as composition, licence, pack artwork or

samples.



concluded that the claims, “Reduce Weight”, “100%

Result Oriented” and “No Diet, No Exercise” were

not substantiated with any clinical evidence of

product efficacy. The claim is misleading by


disappointment in the minds of consumers

particularly patients suffering from obesity. The print



176. @ 2012-C.2378 Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt

Ltd - Upakarma Pure Shilajit Resin


http://latimes.com, (English) (24.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“1st Pure Shilajit Resin in India”













http://latimes.com/





observed that the advertiser is promoting a Shilajit

resin, commonly used in ayurvedic medicines. The

advertiser also claims that they are providing pure

Shilajit resin in India.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “1st

Pure Shilajit Resin in India” was not substantiated


product versus other similar products in India, to

prove that their product is the first purest Shilajit

resin, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation.






FSSAI Complaints:

177. Suo Motu 2012-C.2279 Tata Consumer

Products Limited(*) (Tata Salt Lite)

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTGeInAp3U


Claim objected to:

“छो टो छो टो बो तो ो ो पर गो स्सो आनो ब्लड

प्रो शर बढो नो को ननशो नो है”

This is wrong. People with low BP fly off the handle

at the slightest excuse. No need to reduce salt intake.

CCC RECOMMENDATION:







requesting for an extension to submit their written

response.



immediate and widespread impact that advertisements

have on the public. Consequently, any action which is

needed to be taken with respect to the same is

required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this






extension of additional one business day to respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “the

challenged statement is a fact that summarizes the

well-accepted physiological phenomenon of increased

heart rate and blood circulation as a result of

expressing harsh emotions such as anger (Ref:-

Annexures C, D and E; relevant sections highlighted

in the attached files); b) Increased frequency of such

events is opined to be associated with hypertension

(Ref:-Annexures F and G; relevant sections

highlighted in the attached files); c) Reduction of

dietary sodium is one of the suggestions to manage

hypertension. A large number of scientific reports

have linked anger with hypertension; however, no

such information has been found in association with

low blood pressure. They through this advertisement,

have tried alerting the consumer to the possibility of

hypertension and the potential dietary means of

initiating action, with brevity. There are ample

disclaimers relevant to the nature of the product and

its use to caution the viewer.”


Copy of annexures (scientific references) referred in

their response, (2) Product Label of Tata Salt Lite, (3)

Copy of Product Approval received from FSSAI in

respect of said product, (4) Soft copy of the

advertisement.

The CCC viewed the YouTube advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTGeInAp3U

) and considered the advertiser’s response. The CCC

noted that the advertisement indicates that anger is

the main cause of high blood pressure and that a

person with anger issues should reduce his or her

sodium intake and choose the advertiser’s product to

aid such problems. The CCC opined that this might

not be accurate as people with low blood pressure

may also have similar anger issues.

The CCC further deliberated that low/ high blood

pressure can be a result of various other underlying

issues and factors in the human body. Similarly,

anger/ being short tempered is an individual trait and

depends on an Individual’s temperament. A person

may be an aggressive human being by nature but the

same does not imply that such a person is necessarily

suffering from high blood pressure. The

advertisement portrays that the advertiser’s product

controls high blood pressure issues, which is not the

case.

The CCC further viewed the disclaimer provided by

the advertiser in the advertisement and discussed that

the disclaimer has clearly explained that low sodium

is harmful for people who are on a potassium

restricted diet. The CCC also pointed that the

https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUgEHLWr1iu8&data=04%7C01%7Cdipalok.choudhary%40tataconsumer.com%7Cd2aadca4e2b64938686d08d896a28fea%7C954270f438c148f4ae2a8bd16d8519b9%7C1%7C0%7C637424972387454590%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3%2FwIcWO5fpF298SRbvbmi3OBfMGW6AitSGD94kQkEe4%3D&reserved=0

https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUgEHLWr1iu8&data=04%7C01%7Cdipalok.choudhary%40tataconsumer.com%7Cd2aadca4e2b64938686d08d896a28fea%7C954270f438c148f4ae2a8bd16d8519b9%7C1%7C0%7C637424972387454590%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3%2FwIcWO5fpF298SRbvbmi3OBfMGW6AitSGD94kQkEe4%3D&reserved=0


disclaimer provided in the advertisement was not

clearly legible due to the white colour used in the

font and the disclaimer was also lengthy which

consumer might not be able to read all at once having

regard to the duration for which the disclaimer is

shown.


the claim, “छ ट छ ट ब त पर ग स्स आन ब्लड प्र शर

बढ़न क ननश न है” was inadequately substantiated

and is misleading by ambiguity. The claim is likely to

cause grave and widespread disappointment in the

minds of the consumers. The YouTube advertisement


Code as well as the ASCI Guidelines for Disclaimers


178. @ 2012-C.2307 Mother Dairy Fruit &

Vegetable Pvt Ltd-Mother Dairy Paneer

MEDIUM: Times of India(*), New Delhi Edition,



Claim objected to:

“The Most Delicious and Hygienically Packed

Mother Dairy Paneer”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a Paneer

product - Mother Dairy Paneer.




Most Delicious and Hygienically Packed Mother

Dairy Paneer” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s product versus other Paneer brands, to

prove that the advertiser’s product is more delicious

than all the rest, and is also hygienic in terms of

packing, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation.






179. @ 2012-C.2308 Lohiya Edible Oils Pvt Ltd -

Gold Drop Sunflower Oil

MEDIUM: Eenadu(*), Vijayawad Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Asia's Most Trusted Brand - 2019, Brand Research

Report”

















product - Gold Drop sunflower oil.



advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Asia's

Most Trusted Brand - 2019, Brand Research Report”





other sunflower oil brands that were part of the

survey, the outcome of the survey and the details of

the awarding body. The source for the claim was not





Chapters I.1, I.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of the ASCI Code and



180. @ 2012-C.2309 The Simla’s Ashok Group-

Kayam Pan Paras Pan Masala


MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Allahabad Edition,



Claims objected to:

1. First Choice of Prayagraj

2. Contain Silver and Saffron
















observed that the advertiser is promoting a pan

masala product – Paras Pan Masala. The CCC

observed that the advertiser is claiming their product

to be the first choice of consumers in Prayagraj and

that is contains silver and saffron.




Choice of Prayagraj” was not substantiated with any


data of the advertiser’s product versus other pan

masala products in Prayagraj, to prove that the

advertiser’s product is the first choice of the

consumers, nor the claim was backed by a third party

validation. The claim “Contain Silver and Saffron”

was not substantiated with supporting data showing

presence of these ingredients in the product.

The claims are misleading by exaggeration and is





181. @ 2012-C.2310 Vay India & 7 Hills

Manikchand- Manikchand Pan Masala




Claim objected to:

“Excellent Opportunity to Connect with India's

Largest Pan masala Brand”


The ASCI approached the advertiser (Distributors) for

its response in addressing the objection raised in the









Complaints Council (CCC) noted that no response was

received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed

due date for this complaint.


observed that the advertiser is promoting their pan

masala product - Manikchand Pan Masala.




“Excellent Opportunity to Connect with India's

Largest Pan masala Brand” was not substantiated


product versus other Pan masala products in India, to

prove that their product is larger than all the rest, nor

the claim was backed by a third party validation.






182. @ 2012-C.2311 Vijayalakshmi Dall Mill-

Deer Orid Dall Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Sakshi, Hyderabad Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“No.1 in Quantity and Quality”

















observed that the advertiser is promoting their Dall

range of products. Upon careful consideration of the



“No.1 in Quantity and Quality” was not substantiated


product and other similar brands of Dall, to prove

that they are in leadership position (No.1) for its

quantity and quality, in terms of market share by

value/volume. The claim was also not backed by an







183. @ 2012-C.2313 Gopan Tobacco Products

Pvt. Ltd – Kool Pan Masala (Range of

Products)




Claim objected to:

“Rajasthan's No.1 Kool Pan Masala”
















observed that the advertiser their Pan Masala product

– Kool Pan Masala. Upon careful consideration of the



“Rajasthan's No.1 Kool Pan Masala” was not


advertiser’s product and other similar pan masala

product in Rajasthan, to prove that they are in








184. @ 2012-C.2314 Gopan Tobacco Products

Pvt. Ltd – Kake Shri Pan Masala (Range of

Products)

MEDIUM: EP Nai Duniya(*), Indore Edition, Main



Claim objected to:

“Madhya Pradesh's No.1 Kake Shri Pan Masala”
















observed that the advertiser is product their Pan

Masala product - Kake Shri Pan Masala. Upon careful



that the claim, “Madhya Pradesh's No.1 Kake Shri

Pan Masala” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s product and other

pan masala products in Madhya Pradesh, to prove that

they are in leadership position (No.1), or through an







185. @ 2012-C.2318 Priyom Premium Product-

Range of Products


MEDIUM: EP Mathrubhumi(*), Kochi Edition,

Main Issue (Malayalam) (27.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“No.1 Favourite of Housewives”

















products such as Masalas, wheat products, spices,

snacks, bread, cake, Jam, sauce, pickles etc. The

advertiser is claiming their products to be the No.1

favourite of Housewives.



CCC concluded that the claim, “No.1 Favourite of

Housewives” was not substantiated with verifiable

comparative data of the advertiser’s food products

and other similar food brands in the market, to prove

that they are in leadership position (No.1) of

Housewives, or through an independent third party

validation.






186. @ 2012-C.2319 Querido Eatables - Querido

Range of Products

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Dhanbad Edition,



Claim objected to:

“Best in Quality and Best in Taste”
















observed that the advertiser is promoting food and

snacks products, and is claiming it to be best in

quality and taste.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best in Quality and

Best in Taste” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s food products versus other similar food

and snack products, to prove that they are better than

all the rest in taste and quality, nor the claim was




consumers.



UPHELD.

187. @ 2012-C.2320 Khochage Agro Food &

Beverages- Veleta Mineral Water

MEDIUM: EP Daily Sakal(*), Kolhapur Edition,

Supplement Kolhapur Today (English) (17.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Purest & Healthiest Water”

















observed that the advertiser is promoting packaged

drinking water claiming it to be purest and healthiest

water. Advertiser did not provide any specific

information for the product such as copy of Product

approval license, product label, and Product




CCC concluded that the claim, “Purest & Healthiest

Water” was not substantiated with clinical test

reports, or clinical evidence of product efficacy.




Chapters I.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


188. @ 2012-C.2322 Beyond Temptation

MEDIUM: EP Dainik Jagran(*), Jamshedpur



Claim objected to:

“Best Thick Shake Cold Coffee in Your State”
















observed that the advertiser is a fast food outlet

selling food items – coffee, burger, sandwich and ice

cream. The advertiser is claiming that they provide

best thick cold coffee in Jharkhand.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Thick Shake

Cold Coffee in Your State” was not substantiated with

any market survey data or with verifiable comparative

data of the advertiser’s cold coffee versus other thick

shakes/cold coffee products in Jharkhand, to prove

that their product is better than all the rest, nor the

claim was backed by a third party validation. The






189. @ 2012-C.2323 Aesthetic Nutrition Pvt Ltd -

Power Gummies


http://boxofficeindia.co m , (English) (06.10.2020)


Claim objected to:

“#1 Hair Vitamin”
















(http://boxofficeindia.com) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting Power Gummies hair

vitamins for hair growth. Upon careful consideration



claim, “#1 Hair Vitamin” was not substantiated with


value/volume of the advertiser’s product and other

similar hair vitamin products, to prove that their

product is in leadership position (No.1), or through

an independent third party validation. The claim is






190. @ 2012-C.2330 Alfreshco Foods- Edibleora

& Ediheal Oil range of Products

MEDIUM: Gujarat Samachar, Rajkot Edition,



http://boxofficeindia.com/


Claim objected to:

“Best Quality - Guarantee”

















oil product such as peanut oil, sunflower oil, coconut

oil, mustard oil etc. The advertiser is guaranteeing

their oil products to be of best quality.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Quality -

Guarantee” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s food oil products versus other similar

food oil products, to prove that their products are

better than the rest in quality, nor the claim was







191. @ 2012-C.2380 Parakh Foods and Oils

Limited - Vilina Refined Sunflower Oil


http://hebbarskitchen.c om, (English) (05.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“The Best Quality Cooking Oil”
















(http://hebbarskitchen.com) and observed that the

advertiser is in the promoting a food oil product -

Vilina Refined Sunflower Oil claiming it to be of best

quality.



CCC concluded that the claim, “The Best Quality

Cooking Oil” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s cooking oil brand versus other similar

brands, to prove that their cooking oil is better than

the rest in quality, nor the claim was backed by a third

party validation.









http://voidcan.org, (English) (06.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best Zinc Tablets”
















(http://voidcan.org) and observed that the advertiser

is promoting zinc tablets for daily dose of vitamins to

maintain immune system.


http://voidcan.org/



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Zinc Tablets”



tablets versus other zinc tablets brands, to prove that

their product is better than the rest, nor the claim was










http://kidhealthcenter.com, (English) (04.11.2020)


Claim objected to:

“Best Vitamin C Tablets to Manage Blood Pressure

and Heart Health Naturally”
















(http://kidhealthcenter.com) and observed that the

advertiser is promoting Vitamin C tablets to manage

blood pressure and heart health.



CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Vitamin C

Tablets to Manage Blood Pressure and Heart Health

Naturally” was not substantiated with any market


advertiser’s Vitamin C tablets versus other similar

Vitamin C tablet brands, to prove that their product is








1. 2012-CCC-R.10 (2006-C.994) Eureka

Forbes Ltd(*) – Forbes Coronaguard

NAME OF THE COMPLAINT: TREELabs

Foundation

MEDIUM: Ad-Brochure


Complaint received against the Ad-Brochure of

“Eureka Forbes Ltd – Forbes Coronaguard”, from

TREELabs Foundation.

on page 10 of the presentation it says:

"Its Hypercharged canon fires trillions (10-100

trillion electrons per second) of negatively charged

electrons"

on page 11:

"Creating an electron cloud across closed spaces"

on page 12:

"The negatively charged electrons neutralise the

positively charged S-Proteins on every virus particle"

on page 13:

"It provides complete coverage in every corner and

on every surface"

on page 14:

"Up to 99.9% viruses disabled on surfaces and in the

air, giving you real-time protection against infection

from coronaviruses in closed spaces"

The inventor himself comes on NDTV and talks

about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fgz2jdFwtM

This appears to make many fraudulent claims, and

take advantage of people's fear of covid19. This

product needs to be removed and news-channels

promoting it must clarify to their audience about it so

that people are not fooled.

As a scientist, I find the claims made by the inventor

to be defying the laws of physics.

The device is shown as spewing (like a canon),

particles / electrons inside a room, and claims are

made that in the process the region becomes

sanitized.

Unfortunately, free electrons have very short paths in

ambient air.

The mean free path of electrons in air (at atmospheric

pressure) is less than a micron. How does the

inventor claim that the electrons will be spewed

across a room of size 10,000 cubic ft?

In the interview (youtube link provided), the

language used by the inventor to describe the

mechanism of it working is rather clumsy and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fgz2jdFwtM


amateurish (scientifically). He claims energetic

photons are produced, which in turn produces

secondary electrons, which in turn would neutralize

the virus receptors ! High energy photons (if that is

what is spewed in the environment) are equally

damaging to living cells. Even UVC is very

damaging, which is barely capable of photoemission

of electrons from most surfaces (5eV energy).

I request the product to be immediately suspended for

use in India (and elsewhere if possible) until a

scientific investigation is carried out by capable

scientists. Our requests to the Mexican agency, which

is mentioned in the article as having done tests on

this system, to give us a copy of their report on this

product did not yield any answers yet.

We plan to send this complaint to the PMO and other

relevant ministries also. Speedy action is necessary.

Let us not let people get looted during a pandemic ”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:










Advertiser stated that “they have entered into an

International Humanitarian Collaboration

Agreement for manufacturing, marketing and

distribution rights for SHYCOCAN. They have

launched 'Forbes Coronaguard Powered by

SHYCOCAN' which is proven to attenuate 99.9% of

corona family of virus in enclosed spaces.”

For the claims, "Its Hypercharged canon fires trillions

(10-100 trillion electrons per second) of negatively

charged electrons", and "Creating an electron cloud

across closed spaces", the advertiser responded

that “The inventor's organization i.e. Organization de

Scalene has conducted a test to confirm functional

effectiveness and mapping the field of effectiveness of

SHYCOCAN. This report clearly proves the

generation of electrons in trillions from the photon

discharge and the electrons are available across the

closed spaces (up to 10,000cubic ft).”

For the claim, "The negatively charged electrons

neutralise the positively charged S-Proteins on every

virus particle", the advertiser submitted that “Corona

virus is a Positive sense enveloped mRNA virus,

which is negative seeking.” Advertiser referred to a

report on `Enhanced Binding of SARS-CoV‐2 Spike

Protein to Receptor by Distal Polybasic Cleavage

Sites’ (https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.Oc04798),

and stated that “The hypercharge high velocity

photon mediated electrons interact with the negative

seeking S-protein of Corona family viruses thereby

attenuating them. This reduces the infectivity and

prevents transmission of Corona family of viruses.

This clearly proves the Spike Protein of Corona

Viruses are negative seeking and the negatively

charged electrons neutralise the positively charged

S-Proteins on virus particles.”

For claims, "It provides complete coverage in every

corner and on every surface", and "Up to 99.9%

viruses disabled on surfaces and in the air, giving you

real-time protection against infection from

coronaviruses in closed spaces'' – the advertiser

indicated that “A Virucidal Activity test Report for the

SHYCOCAN Device dated June 16, 2020 is

available. An excerpt of the report from the lab

(https:lllei.mx/) are reproduced which concludes that

SHYCOCAN attenuates 99.9% of coronavirus in

closed spaces. An excerpts of the report from

Aquadiagnostic Water research and Technology

Centre Ltd is reproduced which provides test data of

Coronaguard in decontamination of different

microorganisms on surfaces.”

As claim support data, the advertiser provided - (1)

Organization de Scalene - Functional Field Mapping

study, (2) Virucidal Activity test -Mexico Virology

Shycocan Report, (3) AWRTC report - Test Data of

Coronaguard in Decontamination of Different

Microorganisms on Surfaces, (4) UL EMC EMI

Shycocan report, (5) Report on Fungal Spores Study,

(6) Report on Bacteria Behaviour Study.







opinion. The expert opinion was also provided to the

complainant on their request.

The advertiser did not opt for an IR but sought for a

meeting with the technical expert, which was

arranged by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.Post meeting with the ASCI

Secretariat and the technical expert, the advertiser

submitted their additional data which was shared with

the technical expert for his final opinion.

Based on the advertiser’s data, the technical expert

submitted his final opinion for the Consumer

Complaints Council (CCC) to consider. The CCC

viewed the Ad – Brochure and considered the



The CCC observed that the excerpts of the

Equipment Test Report performed in their own

https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.Oc04798

http://lllei.mx/


laboratory Scalene Cybernetics Ltd. were made

available by the advertiser. However a complete

report was not submitted. The report is the result of

the internal lab testing, and no external testing lab

report was submitted.

To validate the claim against complaint no. 1 and 2,

the Equipment Testing Reports for the device from

an accredited laboratory are required to be submitted

to support the claims. Although Mexico lab was

claimed to be a National lab the fact remains that it is

not an accredited laboratory.

In response to complaint no.3 the advertiser states

that, `Corona virus is a Positive sense enveloped

mRNA virus, which is negative seeking’ is not

correct. The `Positive sense’ term in relation to any

virus is used to describe that the ‘virus mRNA itself

is ready to act as a template for viral replication’. It is

not used to describe that it has positive charge that

attracts negatively charged particles.

The Virucidal Activity test Report for the

SHYCOCAN Device, which concludes that

SHYCOCAN attenuates 99.9% of coronavirus in

closed spaces was not acceptable. The limitations of

penetration of photons/electrons through barriers

could not be answered satisfactorily. The claim of

‘Virucidal activity using ‘Equine arteritis virus’

belonging to the Arteriviridae family as a test virus,

was not acceptable. The fact remains that Equine

arteritis virus (EAV) does not belong to the

Coronaviridae family as was claimed in the

advertisement.

To prove efficacy against SARS Cov-2 Corona

viruses, other corona viruses may be used as

surrogate viruses, as they can be handled in BSL-2

facilities. The Equine arteritis virus, which has been

used in testing, belongs to the Arteriviridae family

and not Coronaviridae as has been claimed in the

advertisement.

The response to claim virucidal activity of the

Coronaguard’s capability of decontaminating MS2

phage (Bacteriophage - a surrogate Virus) as a

surrogate virus instead of SARS CoV2 virus was not

acceptable.

The LEI testing laboratory in Mexico may be a

regulatory lab in Mexico But it is not an accredited

laboratory. Also, they have used the Equine arteritis

virus as surrogate virus instead of SARS Cov-2 virus.

The Aquadiagnostics Laboratory is not an accredited

laboratory. Although the certificate is enclosed it

does not show the lab no. Hence the scope of the

testing for which lab has been authorised could not be

verified.

The test data submitted shows that there is no killing

effect on bacteria and fungi. This was not acceptable

as safety data of the device.

Despite the concessions given by the Govt due to

Covid 19 Pandemic situation the fact remains that, no

data has been submitted for safety of animals and

humans.


the claims, "Its Hypercharged canon fires trillions

(10-100 trillion electrons per second) of negatively

charged electrons", “Creating an electron cloud

across closed spaces", "The negatively charged

electrons neutralise the positively charged S-Proteins

on every virus particle", "It provides complete

coverage in every corner and on every surface", and

“Up to 99.9% viruses disabled on surfaces and in the

air, giving you real-time protection against infection

from coronaviruses in closed spaces", were

inadequately substantiated. The claims are

misleading by exaggeration and are likely to cause


the consumers. The Ad – Brochure contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This


CCC RECOMMENDATION ON REVIEW:

In respect to the claim that "Its Hypercharged canon

fires trillions (10- 100 trillion electrons per second)

of negatively charged electrons", “Creating an

electron cloud across closed spaces", "The negatively

charged electrons neutralise the positively charged S-

Proteins on every virus particle", "It provides

complete coverage in every corner and on every

surface", the CCC-R noted that no additional data has

been provided to substantiate this claim, hence this

particular complaint continues to be UPHELD.

For the claim “Up to 99.9% viruses disabled on

surfaces and in the air, giving you real-time

protection against infection from coronaviruses in

closed spaces", the advertiser submitted lab tests

reports from three different facilities. The virucidal

performance testing was done with Equine Arteritis

virus as a surrogate, as this virus is phylogenetically

similar from the same Nidovirales order and is as per

the EPA recommendations. Although viruses are

classified by closeness of physical, chemical and

biological characteristics according to their

hierarchical levels of order, family, subfamily, genus,

species and strains. The difference increases as they

go further beyond in the taxonomy from species,

genus, sub-family, family, sub-order, order, sub-

class, class, sub-phylum, phylum, sub-kingdom,

kingdom, sub-realm, realm etc. Therefore for all

practical purposes genus is taken as a standard unit.

Hence it is necessary to use members of the genus for

testing if one cannot do testing of the test virus for

any especially safety reasons. Therefore testing using

type species of the genus corona virus or other


members which are safe to handle in bio-safety level

(BSL) II are used instead of Human corona virus

229E which require higher level (i.e. BSL III) for

safety concerns. Therefore test results of Order

Nidovirales, as a surrogate were not acceptable. The

CCC-R also considered the report on evaluation of

cell viability assay. The CCC-R noted that the data

provided for safety referred to a lab culture test of

human lung epithelial cells. This test was not

considered to be acceptable as it is not indicative of

toxicity.

Based on the above, the claim “Up to 99.9% viruses

disabled on surfaces and in the air, giving you real-

time protection against infection from coronaviruses

in closed spaces", was inadequately substantiated.

The claims are misleading and are likely to cause


the consumers. The Ad – Brochure contravened

Chapters I.1, I.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This

complaint was UPHELD on review.

2. 2012-CCC-R.11 (2010-C.1433) JYOTHY

LABORATORIES LTD – Maxo Genius

Liquid Vaporizer

NAME OF THE COMPLAINT: Godrej Consumer

Products Ltd

MEDIUM: Ad-Instagram Post

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CFBqZ1kBkew/?igshi

d=1k4qik9ni5a9t) and Product Packaging


Complaint received against the Ad-Instagram Post


d=1k4qik9ni5a9t) and Product Packaging of “Jyothy

Laboratories Ltd - Maxo Genius Liquid Vaporizer”,

from Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.

We wish to draw your attention about the

advertisement given by the company named Jyothy

Labs (the Company) for promoting their product

“Maxo Genius” (the Product). In the said print

advertisement while promoting the said Product, they

have highlighted boldly that the said Product “fits in

all machines” with a disclaimer “does not work with

customized machines”. The copy of the

advertisement is enclosed for your ready reference.

The Preamble Chapter 1 (4) of the ASCI code states

that “Advertisement shall neither distort facts nor

mislead the consumers by means of implications or

omissions”. The Company is no doubt distorting the

facts and is misleading the consumers by making

them believe that Maxo Genius Liquid vaporizer will

fits in all machines with a disclaimer “does not work

with customized machines”.

On 17 October 2019, GCPL had launched a product

called Goodknight Gold Flash in South India and on

7 February 2020 across India (apart from South

India). Goodknight Gold Flash is a unique

technology, which ensures that only Goodknight

Gold Flash liquid vaporizer bottles fits into the

Goodnight flash machine and we would like state that

Good Knight Gold flash is only product sold by us in

the general market by us.

GCPL is the market leader in the liquid vaporizer

category and have more than 50% market share in the

same. Goodknight Gold Flash machine is unique, is

the most advanced machine, and only Good Knight

Gold Flash Vaporizer can fits into the machine.

We would also like to inform you that in April 2020

we had filed a complaint against S.C. Johnson

Products P. Ltd. For their product, “All Out Sattva”

which had the same claim “Fits in all leading /

famous machines”. The complaint no being 2002-

C.3519. ASCI had upheld the decision in our favour

stating that it was an absolute claim and was

contradictory to the disclaimer, which stated, “Fits in

all leading / famous machines.

In the same manner, the Company is mentioning,

“Fits all machines” with a disclaimer “does not work

with customized machines”, and we would like to

reiterate that the Maxo Genius Refill does not fit into

our Good Knight Gold Flash Machine. (Independent

laboratory report is attached for your ready reference)

Moreover ,the naïve consumers shall never

understand the self-contradicting disclaimer made by

the advertiser “does not work with customized

machines” as the Advertisers machine itself is a

customized machine sold under the brand name

Maxo Genius and they themselves has multiple

different customized machines . We would also like

to highlight the fact that all the leading companies

machines sold alongwith the liquid vaporizer

products in the market are actually customized

accordingly their product architect and hence the

disclaimer is vague & ambiguous hence claim as well

as disclaimer is misleading to the consumer. The

ASCI Code also says that the disclaimer should not

attempt to correct a misleading claim made in the

advertisement. Since the claim of being “Fits in all

Machines” is misleading for the above reasons, no

disclaimer may really be permitted to correct such

claim. Further, the Code, while permitting obvious

untruths with a view to amuse the consumers, does

not permit making of a literal and misleading claim

on the advertised product. Further, the use of the

expression “Fits in all machines” which are

unequivocal in such claims does not even leave any

ground for the Company to argue or qualify the

expression notwithstanding the fact that no such


qualification or explanation is offered. This is for the

reason that the ASCI Code does not permit a

disclaimer to contradict the material claim or

contradict the main message, and does not permit the

change in absolute claims. Moreover, the disclaimers

not permitted for correcting misleading claim. While

GCPL’s Goodknight Gold flash machine only

accepts the Goodknight Gold Flash liquid vaporizer,

it is incorrect to advertise that Maxo Genius fits into

all machine. We are attaching an independent

laboratory report confirming that Goodknight Gold

flash machine only accepts the Goodknight Gold

Flash liquid vaporizer and Maxo genius liquid

vaporizer does not fit into the Goodknight Gold flash

machine.”

CCC RECOMMENDATION:









replied requesting for an extension of one month’s

time to submit their detailed response. The deadlines








advertisers/broadcasters etc, and the CCC itself





respond.

Advertiser in their response stated that “when

considering all similar categories of products

available in the market such as Maxo A Grade /

Genius, Mortein Intsa, Mortein Automatic, All Out

Slider, GoodKnight Neem Liquid Vaporizer,

GoodKnight Power Active Plus, it can be

significantly proved that their Product does fit into

the machines of all Other Products. It is pertinent to

note here that GCPL has ‘customized’ their mosquito

repellent machines ‘Goodknight Gold Flash’ to fit

only their Goodknight liquid vaporizers. This means

that none of the other branded Liquid vaporizer

bottles including Liquid Vaporizer bottles from

GCPL (other than Goodknight Gold Flash liquid

vaporizer bottles) fits into the Goodknight Gold flash

machine. It’s clear that the customization in their

disclaimer doesn’t refer to the aesthetic design or

functional customization but it refers specifically to

the fitment of the Maxo Genius Liquid Vaporizer into

various mosquito repellent machines available in the

market. Gold flash product from Godrej which is a

customised machine as per their own TVC.” As claim

support data, the advertiser provided - (1)

Representation of Maxo Genius Liquid Vaporizer

fitting into all the mosquito repellent machines of

other products, (2) Representation of various Liquid

Vaporizer with identical formulation available in the

market, (3) Copy of front and back of Maxo Genius

product, (4) YouTube link

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIfjZ53UNLw)

for the complainant’s advertisement

On the advertiser’s request, a meeting was arranged

with them by the ASCI Secretariat through Zoom

video conference.

The CCC viewed the Ad-Instagram Post


d=1k4qik9ni5a9t) and the Product Packaging, and

considered the advertiser’s response.

ASCI Secretariat apprised the CCC members present

that the advertiser during their meeting had shown a

demo of their product - `Maxo Genius Liquid

Vaporizer’ fitting in most of the mosquito repellent

machines, However, Maxo Genius Liquid Vaporizer

did not fit into the Goodknight Gold Flash machine

as this being a customised machine. During the

discussions, the advertiser informed that the Gold

flash product of the complainant is a customised

machine as per their own TVC. Advertiser also

confirmed that the market share of the customised

machine is less then 10%.

The CCC observed that the Complainant had

launched their product - Goodknight Gold Flash in

February 2020 across India. Their machine accepts

only their Gold Flash liquid vaporizer which is

specified for their own product and its use and not for

other machines. The advertiser is presenting their

product which has a feature to fit in all the mosquito

repellent machines other than the machines which are

expressly customized to prevent the fitting of all

types of liquid vaporizers.

The advertiser has also acknowledged that their

product does not fit in some customised machines.

The claim applies to the maximum size of the market

of similar products in the mosquito repellent

category, including the complainant’s old products.

The CCC noted that the claim and the placement

position of the disclaimer qualifying the claim is

stated upfront and appears on the same principal

panel of the advertisement / packaging. Also, the

disclaimer clearly clarifies the main claim.


Based on these observations, by majority the CCC

concluded that the claim, “*Fits all machines” with a

disclaimer “*does not work with customised

machines” is not false or misleading. The Ad –

Instagram post and the product packaging is not in

contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code and



This complaint was NOT UPHELD.

Complainant’s Submission for CCC-Review:

In regards to the CCC Recommendation against the

complaint 2010-C.1433, where the complaint was

upheld in the advertiser’s favour with the below

contentions:

a. GCPL has ‘customized’ their mosquito repellent

machines ‘Good knight Gold Flash’ to fit only their

Good knight liquid vaporizers. This means that none

of the other branded Liquid vaporizer bottles

including Liquid Vaporizer bottles from GCPL (other

than Goodknight Gold Flash liquid vaporizer bottles)

fits into the Goodknight Gold flash machine. It’s

clear that the customization in their disclaimer

doesn’t refer to the aesthetic design or functional

customization but it refers specifically to the fitment

of the Maxo Genius Liquid Vaporizer into various

mosquito repellent machines available in the market.

Gold flash product from Godrej which is a

customized machine as per their own TVC.”

b. It is accepted by the Advertiser that their product

doesn’t fit into Goodknight Gold Flash Machines.

c. Advertiser has provided the data which states that

the market share of the customized machine

(Goodknight Gold Flash) is less than 10%.

Reason for Review:

The advertiser is using the expression “Fits all

Machines” with a disclaimer “does not fit in

customized machines” on their product as well in

their communication while promoting their Maxo

Liquid Vaporiser. We would like to reiterate the fact

the GoodKnight Gold Flash is a market leader in the

Liquid Vaporiser category. The only reason every

competitor wants to have such claim that their liquid

vaporizer bottles fits in all machine is that they wants

to promote that their liquid vaporizer bottles fits into

all the leading liquid vaporizer machines which are

already present in the majority of the households.

However the unique feature of the Goodknight Gold

Flash Machine is that it can only take Goodknight

Gold Flash refill liquid bottles and hence we filed a

complaint specifically challenging the claim that

Maxo liquid vaporizer fits in all the machines which

apparently has less than 10% market share.

We would also like to bring to your attention that

how consumers will believe and understand the

disclaimer which are self-contradicting to the main

claim and which contravenes ASCI’s guidelines on

disclaimer specifically 3rd disclaimer i.e. “A

disclaimer should not attempt to correct a misleading

claim made in an advertisement”.

Market Share:

In regards to the market share, we would like to

mention that

a. Goodknight is the market leader and has 58 %

share in the liquid vaporizer (refill) category.

b. In the LMD (Liquid Machine Destroyer) GCPL is

market leader in LMD market with Gold Flash SKU

at 47.9% (almost 48%) at All India level. Below data

by Nielsen upto the October 2020.

From the above, it is clear that Goodknight is the

market leader with almost 58% market share in the

standalone liquid vaporizer refill and almost 48% of

the market share in the LMD category and you will

observe that the LMD (in our case Good Knight Gold

Flash) market share is growing by leaps and bounds

with each passing month.

We are shocked to read in the decision, which is

based on the data submitted by the Advertiser stating

that customized machine, which can be interpreted as

Goodknight Gold flash machine has only 10% market

share. We wish to clarify and place it on record that

when we filed the original complaint at that time also

our Goodknight Gold Flash market share was more

than 40% and as of October 2020 has become almost

48% of the total LMD sold in the market. Hence, we

are shocked how CCC without verifying this crucial

piece of data, relied & concluded that the claim Fits

all machines does not contravene ASCI’s Chapter 1

& 4. Moreover ASCI’s CCC panel also has not found

the disclaimer objectionable even though it’s an

incorrect impression of the fact the Maxo liquid

vaporizer bottles does not fit in the majority of

machines sold in the market.

We firmly believe that the Advertisers claim “Fits in

All Machines “is an absolute claim; even a relative

claim such as Fits in almost all the machines” cannot

pass the test of fitment in all the machine as

practically the Maxo refills does not fit in the 48%

machines which are sold in the market. Therefore, the

disclaimer “Does not fit into the customized

machines" is contrasting to the claim and should not

be allowed as it creates confusion, brings ambiguity

and gives an impression to the consumers that Maxo

liquid vaporizer fits in all the machines including

Good knight Gold Flash machines.

ASCI Code Contravention:


The advertiser while promoting the Product i.e.

“Maxo Genius” is in contravention of Chapter-1.1,

1.4 & 4 of the ASCI code, as there is no honest &

truthful representation. In fact, expression “Fits all

Machines” with a disclaimer “does not fit in

customized machines” is very confusing, vague and

contravenes the guidelines on the Disclaimer.

To conclude, the use of the expression “Fits in all

machines” with a disclaimer “does not fit in

customized machines” is in contravention of the

ASCI disclaimers code 1, 2 & 3.

ASCI Disclaimer Guidelines:

1. A disclaimer can expand or clarify a claim, make

qualifications or resolve ambiguities to explain the

claim in further detail, but should not contradict the

material claim made or contradict the main message

conveyed by the advertiser or change the dictionary

meaning of the words used in the claims received or

perceived by a consumer.

For Example:

If the claim is to offer a product or service for “free”

then the disclaimer cannot contradict the claim by

seeking some payment for product or service.

2. A disclaimer should not attempt to hide material

information, with respect to the claim, the

omission/absence of which is likely to make the

advertisement deceptive or conceal its commercial

intent.

3. A disclaimer should no attempt to correct a

misleading claim made in an advertisement

1. The disclaimer “does not fit in customized

machines” is contradicting the material claim and it

example also is correlating such as Fits all machines

but does not fit in customized machines, which is like

50% market share in LMD category. The disclaimer

is hiding the material information, which is deceptive

and misguiding the naïve consumers who may just

buy seeing the statement “Fits all machines” whereas

it may not in the machines available at their home

coz of the disclaimer “does not fit in customized

machines” . It is also correcting the misleading claim,

when the advertisers product does not even fit into

the approx. 50% machines sold in the market.

CCC RECOMMENDATION ON REVIEW:

Both the advertiser and the complainant presented

their points of view to the CCCR panel.

The complainant stated that “We firmly believe that

the Advertisers claim “Fits in All Machines “is an

absolute claim; even a relative claim such as Fits in

almost all the machines” cannot pass the test of

fitment in all the machine as practically the Maxo

refills does not fit in the 48% machines which are

sold in the market. Therefore, the disclaimer “Does

not fit into the customized machines" is contrasting to

the claim and should not be allowed as it creates

confusion, brings ambiguity and gives an impression

to the consumers that Maxo liquid vaporizer fits in all

the machines including Good Knight Gold Flash

machines.”

The complainant sought a review based on market

share data that was presented to the CCC. The CCC

observed that market share data provided by the

complainant showed the exit market value share of

Good Knight Gold Flash as 47.9%. While volume

share was not available with the complainant, they

mentioned that they had sold over 3 crore machines

since this product was launched in October 2019.

They therefore argued, that Good Knight Gold Flash

were the undisputed market leaders for liquid

vapourizer machines. On this basis, the complainant

contested the CCC’s earlier decision “*Fits all

machines” with a disclaimer “*does not work with

customised machines” is not false or misleading” as

the Maxo product does not fit a large number of

machines being sold. The complainant also argued

that the claim contravened ASCI’s Disclaimer

Guidelines, and that the disclaimer guidelines were

not considered by the CCC in its decision.

The CCCR panel wanted to verify if the complainant

had any data on number of machines in households,

or the average length of time a machine is used for in

a household. The complainant responded that the

average life of machines is two years and this is

stated on all their packaging. However, they were

unable to provide data to suggest number of

machines currently in use across households. The

CCC wished to understand the same as the machine

can be used over multiple months, and is not strictly a

single use product.

The CCCR panel turned to the advertiser’s

arguments. The CCCR panel wished to understand if

there was any data to show presence of machines in a

household, rather than only current volume or value

share as that would pertain only to new machines.

This data would provide a more accurate picture on

the availability of existing machines in the

households, as the CCCR panel was dealing with a

quasi-durable product. Hence the life of such a

product was important to take into consideration.

The advertiser was able to provide 2 sets of data to

the CCCR panel. One was the Nielsen data report for

average market (volume) share of Good Knight Gold

Flash for a two year period, which was observed to

be at 8.3%. This was based on the total number of

Good Knight Gold Flash liquid vaporiser combi pack

bought vs. the total number of combi packs sold in

the category in the last two years. The advertiser

through this calculation tried to establish the tota

number of Good Knight Gold Flash machines as a


percentage of functioning machines in the market.

The rationale for noting this market share was that

the average life of the product was declared as two

years as an industry practice, including the

complainant’s product packaging. This would help to

provide a better idea of the availability of machines

across different households. The advertiser was also

able to provide household panel data by KANTAR

which showed average category penetration at 10%

and the share of Good Knight Gold Flash as being

4.1% of the households using the category. This data

was considered important by the CCCR panel in

assessing the actual usage of liquid vaporiser

machines rather than just the current market share.

The CCCR panel noted that the exit market share of

Good Knight Gold Flash was dominant on the basis

of new machines being added to the market. But if

one considered the current number of machines being

used or being present in households, the

complainant’s product was still small at 4.1%. The

CCC R panel observed that this situation may change

in the coming few months. The CCCR panel noted

the advertiser’s contention that since April, 2012, no

new claim was introduced on the pack.

The original CCC decision was on the basis of

Godrej Gold Flash market share being less than 10%

when taken for the relevant period ( 2 years as the life

of the product). The data provided by the

complainant and the advertiser did not contradict this

basis. Further, it was also established that the

household usage of Godrej Gold Flash was 4.1% of

the current machines being used. Hence it was likely

that a Maxo product purchased would work on all

machines other than customised ones. The CCCR

panel noted the earlier observations of the CCC that

the disclaimer was made prominently next to the

claim on the principle display panel. On this basis,

the CCCR panel by majority decided that the claim in

its current form does not contravene the ASCI code.

The decision of the CCC remained unaltered. This

complaint was NOT UPHELD. On the

complainant’s arguments on claim contravening

ASCI’s Disclaimer Guidelines, the CCCR panel

noted, that no additional data was provided in this

matter for the review panel to consider. Hence, this

claim too was NOT UPHELD and there was no

change to the CCC decision upon review by the

CCCR panel.

1. 2011-FTCP.22 DABUR INDIA

LIMITED(*) – Dabur Red Paste

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Colgate-

Palmolive India Limited(*)

MEDIUM: YouTube(*)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oXMi4OccTo )

and TV Commercial

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Ogilvy(*)


Fast Track Complaint received against the YouTube

advertisement

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oXMi4OccTo )

and TV Commercial of “Dabur India Ltd – Dabur

Red Paste” which appeared on Colors TV dated 16th

November 2020, from Colgate-Palmolive India

Limited.

We are presenting this Fast Track Complaint against

the aforesaid misleading Advertisement which is

being aired on Televisions channels as well as on

Youtube in multiple language formats. A storyboard

of the Advertisement is enclosed for your ready

reference as Annexure – 1. Below is a summary of

the 2 (two) key objections to this misleading

Advertisement.

OBJECTION 1 : The claim “Aur ab Dabur Red

paste, prabhavshali hai 99% virus marne ke liye bhi”,

which translates into English as “And Now Dabur

Red paste is 99% effective in killing the virus”, is not

clear as to which specific virus the product is

effective against. Further, by using imagery

associated with COVID-19 (as shown below), the

Advertiser is suggesting that the product is effective

in killing the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-

19. ASCI CODE PROVISION VIOLATED- chapter

1 – “Truthful and Honest Representation” (1.1, 1.4 &

1.5 ) and the latest Advisory on misleading

advertisements in view of the pandemic situation

dated 19th October, 2020 (“ASCI’s Latest

Advisory”). GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE 1)

ASCI’s Latest Advisory Paragraph 2 requires that

advertisers be specific when making any reference to

the virus that causes COVID-19. Here, the Advertiser

does not specify the particular virus that Dabur Red

Toothpaste is 99% effective in killing. Instead, the


Advertiser refers vaguely to “the virus” and uses an

image associated with COVID-19. By failing to

specify the particular virus and suggesting through

imagery that the unnamed virus is SARS-CoV-2, the

Advertiser is trying to mislead people to believe that

Dabur Red Toothpaste is 99% effective against the

SARS-CoV-2 virus. Accordingly, the Advertiser

should be asked to identify the specific virus to which

they are referring. And, if the Advertiser is not

referring to SARS-CoV-2, all references to the word

virus (and the COVID-19 imagery) should be

eliminated or it should be made clear that the

referenced virus is not SARS-CoV-2, in accordance

with ASCI’s Latest Advisory Paragraph 2. 2) ASCI’s

Latest Advisory Paragraph 3 requires that the claims

made by the Advertiser be substantiated by

recognized technical support, medical/technical

literature, or regulatory- approved clinical research.

Accordingly, the Advertiser should be asked to

identify and explain the support that exists for their

claim that Dabur Red toothpaste is 99% effective in

killing “the virus”. OBJECTION 2 : The claim

“Aapke parivar ko de suraksha”, which translates into

English as “Gives Protection to your Family”, as used

by the Advertiser in combination with the generic

“virus” claim and COVID-19 imagery referenced in

Objection 1, falsely gives the impression that Dabur

Red toothpaste provides protection from the SARS-

CoV-2 virus.

ASCI CODE PROVISION VIOLATED- chapter 1 –

“Truthful and Honest Representation” (1.1, 1.4 & 1.5

) and ASCI’s Latest Advisory. GROUNDS FOR

CHALLENGE : 1) As stated earlier, ASCI’s Latest

Advisory Paragraph 3 requires that the claims made

by the Advertiser be substantiated by recognized

technical support, medical/technical literature, or

regulatory-approved clinical research. Accordingly,

the Advertiser should be asked to identify and

explain the support that exists for its claim that Dabur

Red toothpaste “gives protection to your family”

from “the virus”.”

FTCC RECOMMENDATION:

The Fast Track Complaints (FTC) Panel viewed the

advertisement and heard the Complainant and the

Advertiser. The FTC Panel noted the two objections

against the claims “Aur ab Dabur Red paste,

prabhavshali hai 99% virus marne mein bhi” and

“Aapke parivar ko de suraksha”. The complainant

argued that in the absence of any clarification,

consumers would assume that Dabur Red Toothpaste

is effective against the COVID-19 virus and that this

contravenes the ASCI COVID advisory, unless the

advertiser had the evidence to prove its effectiveness

against the COVID -19 virus.

The Complainant also argued that the line “Aapke

parivar ko de suraksha”, when seen along with the

image and “Aur ab Dabur Red paste, prabhavshali hai

99% virus marne meinbhi” would give the

impression to the consumers that this toothpaste

provided protection to the family against the COVID

-19 virus.

The Advertiser responded by saying that their

toothpaste has been tested against the COVID-19

virus in the Institute for Antiviral Research in Utah,

USA. The FTC Panel noted the expert’s view that

this test appeared to have been done for research

purposes. The FTC Panel also noted that the test

documents provided were on a letter head of ‘Dabur

Research Foundation’ for their internal use.

Therefore the FTC Panel considered this report

inadequate as substantiation for making the above

claims. Its acceptance for a product claim was

inadequate as the protocol followed did not appear to

be a standard one for product claims. The FTC Panel

also noted that no other test report against any other

virus was provided.

Hence the complaint “Aur ab Dabur Red paste,

prabhavshali hai 99% virus marne mein bhi” was

considered misleading by omission and ambiguity

and contravened Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI

Code. The FTC Panel noted that the advertisement

also contravened the ASCI COVID advisory. The


On the second objection against the claim, “Aapke

parivar ko de suraksha”, the FTC Panel noted that

this claim appeared on the last frame along with a

voice-over “Aur ab Dabur Red paste, prabhavshali

hai 99% virus marne mein bhi”, and a visual

depiction that reiterates “maare 99% virus*, proven

effective”. Hence, the two claims were considered

interlinked. In light of “Aur ab Dabur Red paste,

prabhavshali hai 99% virus marne mein bhi” claim

being upheld, the claim “Aapke parivar ko de

suraksha^” was also considered to be misleading by

implication and contravened Chapter I.4 of the ASCI


2. 2012-FTCP.23 Dabur India Limited(*) –

Dabur Honey

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Marico

Limited (*)

MEDIUM: Hindustan Times(*) dated 03-12-2020)

Ad-Instagram

ADVERTISING AGENCY: Havas Worldwide

India Pvt Ltd



Fast Track Complaint received against the print

advertisement (appeared in Hindustan Times dated

03-12-2020) and Ad-Instagram post of “Dabur India

Ltd – Dabur Honey”, from Marico Limited

CSE PRESS CONFERENCE AND FOOD FRAUD

REPORT On December 2, 2020, Centre for Science

and Environment (“CSE”), a public interest research

and advocacy; knowledge dissemination and capacity

building, organization working in the field of air,

water, habitat, industry based, climates, foods and

toxins research and publication based in New Delhi,

held a live press conference presenting its’

investigation into the mother of all food frauds, w.r.t

adulteration of Indian Honey with sugar syrups. CSE

has also been awarded with various awards such as

Edinburgh Medal 2020, Indira Gandhi Prize for

Peace, Disarmament and Development for 2018. Post

the press conference, CSE published a report titled as

“Food Fraud” about the rampant adulteration in

Honey in the Indian Market (Refer Annex C). CSE

investigated the source of adulteration and also tested

13 prominent brands of Honey that were being sold

in India. These samples were tested for C3/C4 sugars

as well as foreign oligosaccharides including SMR,

and TMR for unauthorized addition of rice syrups.

The samples were tested as per the FSSAI mandated

standards tests as well as the Nuclear Magnetic

Resonance Test (“NMR”). Some of the key findings

of the CSE report were

· 77 per cent of the samples were found to be

adulterated with addition of sugar syrup.

· Out of 22 samples tested, only five passed all the

tests

· Honey samples from leading brands such as Dabur,

Patanjali, Baidyanath, Zandu, Hitkari and Apis

Himalaya, all failed the NMR test.

· Only 3 out of the 13 brands – Saffola, Markfed

Sohna and Nature’s Nectar (one out of two samples) -

- passed all the tests. On December 2, 2020 Dabur

immediately, in a knee-jerk reaction, came up with a

clarificatory advertisement and openly negated the

reports calling them as “motivated”. In order to

cover-up the report Dabur in a haste started calling

itself as “Dabur Honeyhas passed German NMR test”

which is blatantly false. 4.1. CLAIM

CHALLENGED:-“Dabur Honey has passed the

German NMR Test”. KEY OBJECTIONS The claim

of “Dabur Honey has passed the German NMR Test”

is false and misleading as has also been

recommended by ASCI vide its recommendation

dated October 15, 2020. ASCI CODE VIOLATED:-

Chapter I as the ASCI Code. GROUNDS FOR

CHALLENGE 4.1.1. Adulteration in Honey is done

in various forms, one of them being addition of sugar

syrups to Raw Honey, during the stages of

manufacturing/refining/bottling before selling the

finished good to the consumers. A flow chart

explaining the stages at which adulteration takes

place in Honey is set forth below: 4.1.2. Dabur has

once again started claiming that its product clears

NMR test. This is the same claim that it was unable

to substantiate in the FTCP complaint dated October

01, 2020 and also chose not to file any review against

the said recommendation. 4.1.3. Dabur in the garb of

claiming its Honey as “Source tested”is misleading

the consumer into believing that the final product is

NMR tested and passed. It is worth mentioning that

the FTCP had already, earlier rejected the contention

of Dabur that testing of Raw Honey,which it is

calling as the source honey, does not guarantee that

the finished product has not been adulterated before

selling to the consumers. On this ground alone the

claim of Dabur should be rejected/restricted. 4.1.4.

Marico has once again independently tested 12

batches of Dabur Honey through Intertek Group Plc.

‘Intertek’ is a world-renowned assurance, testing,

inspection and certification agency, headquartered in

Germany. All such batches have continued to fail the

NMR tests (Refer AnnexureD1- to Annexure D12),

as was the case in the FTCP complaint dated

1stOctober, 2020. The result of the said test reports

are reproduced herein below:-

4.1.5. Marico has taken due care to ensure that each

bottle of Dabur Honey sent to the Intertek for testing

is sent intact in its original packaging. 4.2. CLAIM

CHALLENGED- “100% Pure” 4.2.1. KEY

OBJECTIONS The claim of “100% Pure” is false

and misleading. The standard of honey clearly

provides that Honey shall be the natural sweet

substance produced by Honeybees.(Refer Reg 2.8.3

of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products

Standards and Food Additives) Regulations

2011).Therefore, nothing can be added to Honey

since its’ a natural substance and presence of any

additive or adulterant is neither permitted nor can be

called as a pure Honey. The NMR test of Dabur

Honey clearly establishes/presence of sugar syrups

which is not naturally present in it.

4.2.2. ASCI CODE VIOLATED:- Chapter I as the

ASCI Code. 4.2.3. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE

a. The FSS Act, 2006 prescribes for objective

standards for Honey in Section 2.8.3 of the Food


Safety and Standard (Food Products Standards and

Food Additives) Regulation 2011. The standards

clearly state that honey has to be a natural sweet

substance produced by Honeybees, and that no food

ingredient, including food additives nor shall any

other addition be made other than Honey. An

addition/presence of sugar syrups, thus leads to

Honey not being in its natural form and therefore is

impure. b. The CSE report also clearly states that

sugar syrups that are capable of bypassing the tests

mandated by FSSAI are widely available in the

market. c. Considering the NMR test results from

Marico as well as an independent third party such as

the CSE, it should be noted that the possibility of

Dabur using a sugar syrup capable of bypassing the

FSSAI test cannot be ruled out and Dabur should be

subjected to strict proof to prove the contrary. d.

Once it has been decided by ASCI that Dabur’s NMR

claim is false and misleading, a claim of 100% purity

loses all credibility. Furthermore, if the end product

is found to be adulterated, as has been conclusively

proved by the attached reports, it would be absolutely

misleading to claim 100% purity. e. The FSS

(Advertising and Claims) Regulations 2018 permits

the use of “Pure” only to define a product which is a

single ingredient product to which nothing has been

added. It is also worth mentioning, that the NMR

reports substantiate the addition of sugar syrups,

hence Dabur Honey cannot be termed as 100% Pure.

”

FTCC RECOMMENDATION:

The Fast Track Complaints Panel (FTCP), through a

personal hearing, heard the arguments for both the

complainant and the advertiser. The expert, Prof.

Smita Lele, who reviewed all the technical evidence

provided to the FTCP was also present during the

deliberations.

The complainant objected to 2 key claims in the

advertisement for Dabur Honey:

a. Dabur Honey has passed the German NMR Test

b. Is NMR Source tested

CLAIM 1: NMR test related

a. Dabur Honey has passed the German NMR Test

b. Is NMR Source tested

The FTCP noted that the claim “Dabur Honey has

passed the German NMR test” was in contravention

of the ASCI ruling, “‘NMR Tested’ is considered

false and misleading by implication and omission and

UPHELD under Chapter 1.4”, dated14.10.2020.

ASCI noted that the advertiser had confirmed that the

said claim was now withdrawn and that it was placed

inadvertently. Given that this was a new campaign,

the FTCP would strongly urge the advertiser to

ensure that such a claim is not repeated if it cannot be

substantiated, as it amounts to misleading the

consumers.

The FTCP then took note of the claim “IS NMR

SOURCE TESTED”. The advertiser asserted that all

its raw material is tested on its own NMR machine

and also provided several tests of the raw material it

procures, which were all shown as clearing the NMR

test. The advertiser, in their arguments said while that

they believed strongly in the NMR testing technique,

and that it would perhaps be more widely used in the

future. However, the NMR database was inadequate

at this time to use as product or claim support for the

finished product in India, as the database had < 1.5 %

Indian honey representation. When asked if this was

statistically significant in terms of absolute numbers,

the advertiser contended that Bruker, who is the

NMR machine and test developer, had not provided

them with enough data to clearly establish how

representative their sampling was.

The FTCP then asked the advertiser why they had

been using NMR related claims in their

advertisements in the past and even now, if they

believe this technique does not adequately support

claims related to Indian honey. To this, the advertiser

responded that this was done to address competitive

claims. The FTCP noted that the advertiser’s stance

on NMR testing was inconsistent with its usage in

their advertising claims. The FTCP expressed

concern that this was being used in advertisements in

spite of the advertiser’s own admission that they

considered it premature for claim testing. The FTCP

did not consider competitive provocation as a valid

reason to put a specific test result in the

advertisement, when the advertiser themselves had

doubts over the data. The FTCP was of the opinion

that this amounted to selectively using the test

depending on the needs of the advertiser.

The FTCP noted that the advertiser was using “NMR

source tested” in an advertisement, which is for the

final finished product, and targeted at end consumers.

The end consumers could not be burdened with the

onus of knowing the process of honey filtration or

packaging, or that “source tested” is different from

the final product being NMR tested and compliant.

The consumer is not expected to be familiar with the

process of honey production, filtering and packaging

and the average consumer’s concern is with the

finished product, which is being advertised.

Therefore, the FTCP believed that such a claim could

mislead consumers into thinking that the final

product, of which the advertisement is, is also NMR

tested and compliant. Thus, the FTCP decided that

this complaint should be UPHELD as the claim


“NMR source tested” has been framed in a manner

that exploits the lack of experience and knowledge of

the consumer, and could take undue advantage of

consumer trust. This claim contravened chapter 1.5 of

the ASCI code.

CLAIM 2:- 100% PURE

Based on the expert opinion, the FTCP noted a

discrepancy between the test reports of the final

product shared by complainant, and the NMR source

testing reports shared by the advertiser. The FTCP

observed there were two non-complying parameters,

namely, serial numbers 7 and 10 (c3,c4 sugar syrup

addition allegation by complainant) in the product

analysis report of the advertisers product, submitted

by the complainant, vs. raw honey NMR reports

submitted by Advertiser. The FTCP deliberated that a

simple blending of different raw honey

consignments, cannot lead to such results irrespective

of blending proportions and hence it may be inferred

that some alteration in honey composition is

indicated during processing, filling, and packing.

The FTCP noted the advertiser’s test report showed

that it cleared all FSSAI standards prescribed for

honey. However, in the advertisement where the

claim of 100% Pure is made, several reasons,

including NMR testing have been provided as

support. As deliberated before, the claim of “NMR

tested” and “NMR source tested’ are misleading

under Chapter 1.4, hence the claim 100% PURE read

in conjunction with “NMR source testing” which is

mentioned as one of the basis of the 100% PURE

claim is also misleading by omission and implication.

Given the recent events, NMR testing is widely

reported in the media as a new testing methodology,

hence consumers would start to build some

familiarity and acceptance of this technique. The

FTCP concluded that source honey testing by NMR

does not automatically reflect the 100% purity claim

on the ultimate marketed product and thus is

misinforming the consumer. In this context, the claim

100% PURE in this advertisement, was considered to

be in contravention of the ASCI code 1.1, 1.4 as it

could mislead the consumers by way of implication

or omission. This complaint was UPHELD.

3. 2012-FTC.24 Marico Limited (*) – Saffola

Honey

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT: Dabur India

Limited (*)


We have received a Fast Track

complaint against the above referred

print advertisement (published in Times

of India Delhi NCR

edition dated

6th December

2020), Facebook

advertisement(https://www.facebook.co

m/saffolahoneyindia/photos/a.19216846

9227602/192167915894324/?type=

3&theater) and Instagram advertisement

(https://www.instagram.com/p/CIcBz2

QJRo-/ ) of “Marico Ltd – Saffola

Honey”, from Dabur India Limited.

CLAIMS CHALLENGED

NMR Tested – Every Batch of packed

Saffola Honey passes stringent tests

including NMR Test to ensure that it is

100% Pure.

a) Key Objections:

This claim by Marico that “Every

Batch” of Saffola Honey is “NMR

Tested” and “Passed” to ensure that it is

“100% Pure” is completely false and

misleading. Batch Nos. A01, K10, K14,

K16 of Saffola Honey were tested for

NMR through BRUKER’S (the sole

entity manufacturing NMR equipment),

Saffola Honey FAILED in the test and

Sugar Syrups and severely increased

content of Ethanol, were deducted.

Further, QSI (independent German Lab)

in its reports has evaluated Saffola

Honey as “untypical for table honey”

and “adulterated”.

b) ASCI code violated: Chapter I

c) Grounds for challenge:

4.1.1 Marico had published a print ad

and posted the Advertisement on its

Facebook and Instagram Accounts for

Saffola Honey on 05.12.2020

advertising for sale its Saffola Honey

with a claim that “Every Batch” of

Saffola Honey is “NMR Tested” and

“Passed” to ensure that it is “100%

https://www.facebook.com/saffolahoneyindia/photos/a.192168469227602/192167915894324/?type=3&theater




https://www.instagram.com/p/CIcBz2QJRo-/

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIcBz2QJRo-/


Pure”.

4.1.2 The claim made by Marico, which

they have been advertising for some

time now, is false and misleading to

their knowledge and it is designed to

confuse and mislead consumers to

believe “Every Batch” of Saffola Honey

is NMR Compliant and it is found to be

100% Pure and without any adulterant.

4.1.3 Dabur has got independently tested

Batch Nos. A01, K10, K14, K16 of

Saffola Honey through BRUKER’S

(sole manufacturer of NMR equipment)

– Reports attached. The Reports give

the unequivocal finding that: “Detection

of Sugar Syrups: YES” (Page 1 of the

report)

“Result: There are indications for the

presence of Sugar Syrups” (Page 3 and 4 of

the report)

4.1.4 The Bruker’s reports further show

that Saffola Honey has severely

increased content of Ethanol1, which

indicates Fermentation. As ideally, table

honey should not ferment, these

samples of Saffola Honey were

classified as “BAKER’S/

INDUSTRIAL HONEY” by Intertek

(an independent German Lab) in its

analysis report- Reports attached.

4.1.5 Though above-referred Intertek’s

analysis reports for Saffola Honey

interpreted the NMR profile for the

samples of Saffola Honey as

“UNTYPICAL”2 and classified them as

“BAKER’S/ INDUSTRIAL HONEY”

but in the section “Indications for

Adulteration” the result shown as

“NO”, which was surprising.

4.1.6 As Intertek’s interpretation of

Bruker’s report was confusing to the

extent that it showed Indications for

Adulteration as ‘No’, while Bruker’s

report clearly detected the presence of

Sugar Syrups in the samples of Saffola

Honey. In order to clarify the confusion,

Dabur obtained interpretation reports

from another well reputed and an

independent German Lab – QSI. QSI

has also interpreted the Bruker’s report

and in its reports has evaluated Saffola

Honey as “untypical for table honey”

and “adulterated”. QSI’s interpretation

reports are attached. 4.1.7 Therefore, it

is evident that this claim by Marico that

“Every Batch” of Saffola Honey is

“NMR Tested” and “Passed” to ensure

that it is “100% Pure”, is false and

misleading to the knowledge of Marico

and is violative of Chapter I of the

ASCI Code.

4.1.8 The bottles of Saffola Honey sent

by Dabur for testing were sent in

original manufacturer’s packaging with

original with manufacturer’s seal intact,

as recorded in the Test Reports.

4.2 “100% Pure”

a) Key Objections:

This claim by Marico of “100% Pure”

for its Saffola Honey, which is being

advertised for some time now, is also

false and misleading, to their

knowledge as assuming Marico had

tested each Batch of Saffola Honey, it

would got the NMR

results/interpretation, showing presence

of sugar syrup, in addition to Saffola

Honey failing on other parameters (as

detailed below). Consequently, Marico

could not claim Saffola Honey to be

“100% Pure”. Presence of Sugar Syrups

and severely increased content of

Ethanol in Saffola Honey in Batch Nos.

A01, K10, K14, K16 clearly

demonstrates the falsity of these claims.

Further as set out below, several

batches of Saffola Honey failed on

critical parameters for authentic honey

including the parameters prescribed by

FSSAI which makes Saffola Honey

NOT PURE and NOT FREE FROM

ADULTERATION.

b) ASCI code violated: Chapter I


c) Grounds for challenge:

4.2.1 FSSAI has by its direction dated

01.07.2020 has mandated compliance of

the Food Safety and Standards (Food

Products Standards and Food Additives)

Amendment Regulations, 2020 w.r.t.

standards for honey in India (in short

“FSSAI Amendment Regulations,

2020”).

4.2.2 Sub-regulation 2.8.3 of FSSAI

Amendment Regulations, 2020

defines Honey as:

“Honey is the natural sweet substance

produced by honey bees from the nectar

of plants or from secretions of living

parts of plants or excretions of plant

sucking insects on the living parts of

plants, which the bees collect, transform

by combining with specific substances

of their own, deposit, dehydrate, store

and leave in the honeycomb to ripen

and mature.

a) Blossom Honey or Nectar Honey is the

honey which comes from nectars of

plants.

b) Honeydew Honey is the honey which

comes mainly from excretions of plant

sucking insects (Hemiptera) on the

living parts of plants or secretions of

living parts of plants.”

4.2.3 This definition of honey leaves no

doubt that Honey should not contain

any other ingredient including any food

additive.

4.2.4 Further, item (V) (in a form of a table)

of sub-regulation 2.8.3 of the FSSAI

Amendment Regulations, 2020, also

prescribes certain parameters / limits/

tests which are standards w.r.t. honey in

India and if honey (including Saffola

Honey) fails any of the parameters /

limits/ tests prescribed, such honey

cannot be said to be “100% Pure”

i.e. Free from any Adulteration.

4.2.5 As explained in Section 4.1 above,

Saffola Honey is found to be adulterated

with Sugar Syrups – which are not

naturally present in honey and has been

classified as Baker’s/ Industrial Honey

having severely increased content of

Ethanol – which indicates Fermentation

and an “untypical” NMR Profile; thus

making the claim of Marico that Saffola

Honey is “100% Pure” false and

misleading and violative of Chapter I of

ASCI Code.

4.2.6 Further, Intertek’s/ QSI’s analysis

reports for Saffola Honey Batch Nos.

K05, K06, K07, K09, K10, K14, K16,

A01 clearly show that Saffola Honey

has failed in several critical parameters

for authentic honey like Ethanol

content, Aliphatic Hydrocarbons;

including the parameters prescribed by

FSSAI with respect to Standards of

Honey in India like Hydroxymethyl

Furfural (HMF) content, Water-

insoluble content, etc. For ease of

reference, a chart is given below setting

out details of the parameters which

different batches of Saffola Honey have

failed:

4.2.7 The fact that Saffola Honey does not

comply with the parameters/ standards

for authentic honey including the

parameters prescribed under FSSAI

Amendment Regulations, 2020,

falsifies/negates its claims of “100%

Pure” and makes such claims false and

misleading, consequently violative of

Chapter I of ASCI Code.

4.2.8 The Food Safety and Standards

(Advertising and Claims) Regulations,

2018 were mandated providing for

regulations pertaining to claims and

advertisements, to avoid misleading

claims by marketers. Item No. 3 of

Schedule V of the referenced

Regulations prescribes that the term


“Pure” can only be used to describe a

single ingredient food to which nothing

has been added and which is free from

avoidable contamination. Saffola Honey

being found to be added with Sugar

Syrup and adulterated, Marico cannot

be permitted to claim “100% Pure” for

Saffola Honey

For the convenience & easy

understanding of these technical terms,

we are submitting below with

appropriate references.

1) NMR profile :

• Typical : System declare a

Honey in to typical ( as defined by the

Annex I and II EU honey Directive

2001/110 and based on the current

Honey-ProfilingTM database of Bruker

BioSpin GmbH and our expert

interpretation) if no deviations in the

parameters and the entire NMR profile (

Fingerprint of the honey) can be

observed.

• Untypical : An untypical

honey according to the Annex I and II

EU honey Directive 2001/110 shows

indications of adulteration in the NMR

profile mainly in the sugar area or also

in deviating quality parameters.

2) Ethanol Content: Concentration of

ethanol exceeding 400 mg / kg indicates

fermentation.

Reference: Reports reference of

QSI & Intertek Lab, Germany ,

Annexure – 1 & 4

3) Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) : HMF

is an Indication of honey quality & is

used as a marker for degradation by

excessive heating/aging.

• FSSAI Specs : Standards for

Honey , HMF - 80 mg/kg, max.

Reference : Annexure No. 17

• EU Specs : Council

Directive 2001/110/EC relating to

honey, dated Dec. 20th, 2001; Article 1

in connection with Annex II.” , the limit

of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural are 40

mg/kg OR 80 mg/kg for honey from

tropical regions. Reference: Annexure

No. 18

• Codex

Alimentarius

commission:

Codex

standard for

Honey,

CODEX

STAN 12-

19811

Reference:

Annexure No.

19

4) Bakers / Industrial Honey : Is honey

that does not meet fully all the criteria

for table honey & is suitable for

industrial uses or as an ingredient in

other foodstuffs which are then

processed and may…….

Have a foreign taste or

odour, or Have begun to

ferment or have

fermented, or Have been

overheated Reference: a) Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating

to honey, dated Dec. 20th, 2001; Article 1 in

Connection with Annex II, Annexure no. 18.

b) Food and Agriculture Organisation of


the United Nations, Non-Wood Forest

products, 19, Bees and their role in

forest livelihoods BY Nicola Bradbear,

Page no. 85, Honey Categories

concerning intended use (Trade

Categories), Definition of Table Honey

and Industrial or Bakers Honey,

Annexure no. 20.

c) Indian Standard, Extracted Honey –

Specification (Second Revision), IS

4941:1994 (reaffirmed 2002.2014 &

2019), Annexure no. 21.”

FTCP RECOMMENDATION

For the complaint of Dabur Honey

against Marico’s Saffola Honey, the

Fast-Track Complaints Panel (FTCP)

heard both the complainant and the

advertiser. The FTCP was assisted by

Dr. Smita Lele, who was the subject

matter expert.

The FTCP noted that the complaints were

in relation to Saffola Honey making the

following claims:

1. NMR passed

2. 100% pure, 100% sure

The complainant argued that the

advertiser’s sample sent to the NMR

testing laboratory showed that it was

“UNTYPICAL”, and that “NMR

passed” claim should only be allowed if

all their samples were found to be

“Typical” sample. If a sample was

declared either “untypical” or

“Adulterated” such honey cannot be

called NMR passed.

The complainant contented that the

Bruker report while showing the sample

as “untypical” had declared the honey

samples as “not adulterated”, which

was incorrect. They relied upon an

earlier report to demonstrate that

another lab, QSI had mentioned that

such samples are adulterated.

The complainant also alleged that the

advertiser’s honey had further

adulterants, and did not clear tests

related to HMF, water insoluble content

and Nitrofurans based on test data

provided. Hence the claim “NMR

passed” as well as “100% pure, 100%

sure” were misleading to the average

consumer as these samples showed that

they were adulterated.

The complainant further added that

“100% Pure” and “Pure” are different

as far as consumer interpretation is

concerned.

The first question before the FTCP was to

consider whether untypical is the same as

adulterated.

FSS ACT 2006, SECTION 3(1)(A)

defines an “Adulterant” as “any

material which is or could be employed

for making the food unsafe or sub-

standard or mis-branded or containing

extraneous matter”.

The FTCP discussed that adulteration is

a deliberate and intentional act. For a

normal consumer, the concern would

whether the honey they are consuming

is in its natural state or been adulterated

through added sugar/ other adulterants.

FTCP noted that the Bruker report and

communication presented by the advertiser

mentioned “Deviations

to reference distributions do not

necessarily indicate an adulteration”.

The QSI communication to advertiser

also clarified that untypical is not the

same as adulteration, and deviation

means that the sample is different from

the database.

The FTCP accepted the advertiser’s

argument that detection of sugars is not

the same as addition of sugar. The

former could happen as a result of


honey fermentation, which is not

uncommon in a tropical country like

India with an unorganized supply chain.

Therefore, the expert view of Intertek

lab is required to differentiate the

presence of sugar due to fermentation

versus adulteration, basis which the

final result pertaining to the sample is

provided. This report clearly stated that

the “adulteration test 34 of the Bruker

analysis is a false positive detection due

to the fermented state of this sample”

The FTCP noted that as per FSSAI, there is

no standard for ethanol for Indian honey.

Ethanol is present in almost all Indian

honeys including the products of both

the advertiser and complainant as

shown by test reports submitted by the

advertiser and this is attributed to due to

high ambient temperatures. As

regarding the classification of honey as

baker’s honey, FTCP noted that

FSSAI does not have any such category

as “Bakers honey” for Indian Honey.

The advertiser argued that Ethanol and

HMF are not adulterants, but in-situ

generated compounds and show state of

the honey sample. So long as they are

below the prescribed limits, the sample

cannot be considered to be adulterated.

The FTCP hence considered that there

was no ground to dispute the lab tests

submitted (table below) that showed

that the tested batches of Saffola Honey

had passed the NMR test. Hence the

objection to the claim of “NMR passed”

was NOT UPHELD.

K

-

0

5

All 53 Markers

Passed

NO

ADULTERATION

K

-

0

6

All 53 Markers

Passed

NO

ADULTERATION

K

-

0

7

All 53 Markers

Passed

NO

ADULTERATION

A

-

0

1

All 53 Markers

Passed

NO

ADULTERATION

K

-

1

0

S.No- 34-

4.460(5.030- 5.070);

NO

ADULTERATION

K

-

1

4

S.No- 34-

4.460(5.030- 5.070)

NO

ADULTERATION

K

-

1

6

S.No- 34-

4.460(5.030-

5.070)

NO

ADULTERATION

On the allegations of other adulterants

being added, the FTCP and expert

noted the test data provided by the

complainant and the advertiser.

The FTCP noted that FSSAI has

notified numerous NABL Accredited

Labs across India under the FSS Act,

2006 for testing of HMF, Water

Insoluble Content & Nitrofurans, using

FSSAI approved methods

It should be noted that the numerical value

of a specific chemical component could be

different

depending on the method of analysis.

Also, the permissible limit of a

particular component in food specified

by different countries varies based on

many factors. Further, interpretation of

results with the same method of

analysis could also lead to different

inferences when the reference standard

is changed.


Hence while taking decision the FTCP

has considered FSSAI standards for

honey, analytical methods specified by

FSSAI for a particular component, and

lab reports of NABL accredited labs to

arrive at final conclusion with regards

to acceptability of data and claims.

For HMF testing, the FTCP noted that

Dabur’s test reports show use of a

different method which is the

Spectroscopic method, rather than the

method approved by FSSAI for testing

HMF, which is the AOAC method. The

advertiser was able to demonstrate that

7 different samples of A-01 Batch of

Saffola Honey were tested through three

different FSSAI notified labs by the

AOAC method. All test results

confirmed that Saffola Honey met the

FSS standard on HMF and values were

below 80 mg/kg.

For testing of presence of Water

Insoluble Matter (K-10), Dabur’s test

reports again show use of a different

method than the method approved by

FSSAI for testing Water Insoluble

Matter i.e. DIN 10743, mod (a)1

The FTCP noted the test results shared

by Marico using FSSAI recommended

‘Harmonised Method Of The

International Honey Commission’ for

testing K-10 batch of Saffola Honey in

the FSSAI notified laboratories. All

values were found to be < .1% level as

prescribed by FSSAI for this

For presence of Nitrofurans in (A-01,

K-05, K-09, K-16) FTCP noted the test

results provided by Marico in an FSSAI

notified and NABL accredited labs

using the approved method which

showed presence of Nitrofurnas level

within the prescribed limits, vs. Dabur’s

test reports which showed use of a

different method which appeared to be

an “in-house procedure” and not the

FSSAI approved procedure for testing

Nitrofurans.

It is observed that the advertiser has

very clearly shown in the response plus

with additional test results produced

during FTCP that all the Saffola Honey

batches are NMR tested and passed, all

the samples under discussion when

tested with FSSAI approved methods

and by NABL accredited labs, have

shown values of various parameters

such as HMF, water insolubels etc. are

below permissible limit and product is

complying FSSAI standard for Honey.

Based on these test reports submitted by

the advertiser, the FTCP accepted their

argument that as per tests done in

FSSAI notified labs with methods

prescribed by FSSAI, that there was no

adulteration or presence of undesirable

compounds in their honey. And hence,

there was no basis to dispute the claim

“100% pure, 100% sure”.

The FTCP also noted that the addition

of “100%” to the claim of “Pure” was a

matter of a recent IRP, where the same

has been permitted. There did not

appear to be any grounds to challenge

that based on the submissions made by

the advertiser or the complainant.

Hence the objection to the claim “100%

pure, 100% sure” was NOT UPHELD


2012-CCC.22

ADVERTISEMENTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE AYUSH COVID-19 ORDER

The following advertisements were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Ministry of Ayurveda,

Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) order dated April 1, 2020 prohibiting

publicity and advertisement of AYUSH-related claims for COVID-19 treatment in print, TV and electronic

media. The advertisers were informed of these potential violations and contravention of Chapter III.4 of the

ASCI Code with a Copy to the Ministry of AYUSH.

AYUSH Complaints

Sr.

No

Complaint

No / source

Advertiser

(Brand /

Product)

Media /

Publication Date

Claim/s

Objected to

Complaint

1 2011-C.1980

@

Venkateswara

Ayurveda

Nilayam Ltd

(Chyavanaprasa

Lehya)

Digital Display

(http://Indiaglitz.com)

(30.09.2020)

(Telugu)

Any virus... if

you want to

face it, now

add to your

body, ayurved

power/

immunity

power boost,

divine

medicine/

(energy)

Given the current pandemic

scenario, the claim objected

to imply’s that

consumption of the product

“Chyavanaprasa Lehya”

can prevent & protect from

Covid-19.

2 2011-C.2115

@

Dr Vaidyas

(Herbolab India

Pvt Ltd)

(Immunoherb)

Digital Display

(http://surejob.in )

(13.11.2020)

(English)

Increase

immunity

power! Protect

Yourself

Against Viral

Infections

Now!

Given the current pandemic

scenario, the claim objected

to above imply’s that

consumption of the product

“Immunoherb” can prevent

& protect from Covid-19.

http://indiaglitz.com/

http://surejob.in/

Recommendations – December 2020 - The Advertising ...

Documents

Transcript of Recommendations – December 2020 - The Advertising ...