ASCI bans 95 ads, including Jio, Mankind, Amrutanjan, Emami's Fair & Handsom, Philips, Wipro's Chandrika, Reckitt Benckiser, Seagram's Royal Stag, Heinz, Dabur, Fena and Aaj Tak in December 2016
The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 95 advertisements out of 125 complaints it received across segments during December 2016. Out of 95 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 58 belonged to the Healthcare category, four to the Education category, followed by nine in Personal Care Category, 10 in the Food & Beverages category, and 14 advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.
 
The banned ads are from prominent companies like Emami Ltd (Fair & Handsome), Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel), Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd. (Back pain roll on), Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (Reliance Jio Digital Life), Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd (HP Ink Tank Printing), TV Today Network Limited (Aaj Tak), Go Airlines (India) Ltd (Go Air), Berger Paints India Ltd (Lewis Berger Weather coat Anti Dust Paint), Kent RO Systems Ltd (Kent Air Purifiers), and Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd (Television Division) among others, they range from FMCGs to autos, personal accessories to alcohol, and education to media.
 
HEALTHCARE:
 
The CCC found the following claims of 58 advertisements in health care products or services to be either misleading or false or not adequately / scientifically substantiated and hence violating ASCI’s Code. Some of the health care products or services advertisements also contravened provisions of the Drug & Magic Remedies Act and Chapter 1.1 and III.4 of the ASCI Code. Complaints against the following advertisements were UPHELD.
 
1. Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Heal-O-Kind Nanofine Gel): The advertisement’s visual showing a mother and daughter holding a cracker (phuljari), when read in conjunction with the advertisement headline “chodo jalne ki fikr, Diwali manao befikr” suggests that one may celebrate Diwali (bursting crackers) in carefree manner. ie. suggesting that even if one were to get burns, there is no need to worry thus implying a careless attitude and showing disregard for safety and encouraging negligence.  
 
2. Life fitness point: In the context of an advertisement for a gym , the visual showing a woman’s buttock (in non-Gym attire), read in conjunction with the tagline, “Boldest bums of South Bhopal now gymming a blast!”, is vulgar, and indecent which is likely in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and propriety to cause grave and widespread offence.  
 
3. Dhanwantri Pharmaceutical (Swarn Madhu): The advertisement’s claim, “Removes - Weakness of brain - Weakness of body - Lack of Sexual power – Azoospermia, and makes you healthy”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy data, and are misleading. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for sexual problems (lack of sexual power), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Cosmetics Act (D&C Act).
 
4. Sri Maharishi Pharma: The advertisement’s claim, “Diabetes will be cured within 20 days. Also all related diabetic/problems like joint pain, itching on feet, back bone pain, gastric issues, sneezing, cold, all these will be cured by Sri Maharishi Pharma”, were not substantiated with clinical evidence, and are misleading. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for Diabetes, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act (DMR Act). Further, the claims are misleading by exaggeration. In addition the claim, “If it does not cure within 20 days your money will be return to you”, was not substantiated with supporting evidence of the customers who were refunded with the money back, and is misleading.
 
5. Dr. Titus's Centre for Sexual & Mental Health (Dr. Titus P Varghese): The advertisement’s claim, “Cure for Homosexuality”, was not substantiated with clinical evidence, and is misleading by exaggeration.
 
6. Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd. (Back pain roll on): The advertisement’s claim, “Amrutanjan Back Pain Roll-On ka special ayurvedic formula kaam kare bass tees second mein”, implies that the product will provide relief within 30 seconds, whereas, as per the findings of the Nielsen study, the product “starts” acting within 30 seconds. It was concluded that the claim is misleading by implication.  
 
7. Anmol Tila: The advertisement’s claim, “Indriya vardhak” (enhancing the penis size) was not substantiated, and is misleading. Also, this claim is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.
 
8. Magic Wings Centre: The advertisement’s claims,  “For the first time in M.P., Dr. Neha Arora uses modern science’s most advanced technology i.e Bio stem Therapy, Cell Regeneration Therapy and Decompression therapy to control incurable diseases”, “Gradual loss of Vision”, “Old paralysis” and “Muscular Dystrophy (more than 100 successful treatment) , cerebral atrophy, cerebral palsy”, were not substantiated with supporting clinical evidence. Further, specific to the claims implying treatment for gradual loss of vision (Blindness) and Paralysis, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.
 
9. Herbal Daily  (Herbal Daily Haldi): The advertisement’s claims, “Herbal Daily Haldi - It is a Natural tonic to treat millions of people having the problem of Sinus, Cough cold, Asthma & Allergy, Arthritis, Uric Acid, Joint knee pain, Weight loss”, and “100% Natural Treat”,  were not substantiated with clinical evidence for the advertised product for its efficacy. Further, the consumer testimonials were not considered to be acceptable as authentic, primary claim support data. Also there was a concern expressed for promotion of this “food” product as a medical product implying treatment for medical claims.  The advertisement is also misleading by ambiguity as it states “100% Natural Treat” implying “treatment”.
 
10. SKS Ayurveda Impex Pvt. Ltd. (SKS Ayurveda Range of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “SKS - Increase height by adopting ayurved,” “This drug do proper blood circulation in our body,” & “Consciousness to hormones. After 90 days use of medicine you will yourself see that you have increased your height.” and a misleading visual, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
11. Astha Clinic (AJM): The advertisement’s claims, “White Spot - Successful Treatment” and a misleading visual, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
12. Micropark Wellness (Muslinites Range): The advertisement’s claims, “1.1X10 Muslinites Gold Capsule,” “Now Muslinites Tripti Oil is also available,” and “For Best results use with MusliNites Tripti Oil,” were considered to be,  prima facie, in violation the D&C Act.
 
13. Izda Healthcare (Six Foot Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “SIX FOOT - Helpful in Physical Development” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
14. Chitransh Homeo Hall: The advertisement’s claim, “Treatment of white spots, psoriasis, acne, nails, hair diseases from roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
15. Cenezoic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (Diaba Dops Liquid): The advertisement’s claim, “Now sugar treatment from the roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
16. Hair Grow: The advertisement’s claims, “HAIR GROW - Grow natural hair in 120 days with no age limit, whether bald from childhood”, “Lifetime freedom from unwanted hair”, “Money back if you find no effect” and “Solution to baldness & every kind of hair problems,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
17. Delhi Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “For a happy married life, meet us”, “Safe & Successful Treatment of Sex Problems” and a misleading visual were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.  
 
18. Dr. Gupta’s Skin & Hair Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “White spots, Baldness, etc. can be cured from the roots by Homeopathy. Homeopathy is the cheapest treatment and disease is cured from the roots,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
19. Dr. Sanjeev Cancer & Liver Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “For the first time Indian Scientist Dr Sanjeev Bhardwaj in his research on cancer has seen remarkable improvement in last stage cancer patients.  Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj has found alternative treatment to chemo and radiation. He has achieved amazing results via this Advanced Treatment for cancer and PET CT Scan reports of patients have shown quick decrease in cancer”, “Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, has stated in his study that while treating patients in the last stage of Cancer, their PET CT Scan reports showed quick decrease in cancer and near death patients reported”, “surprising improvement”,  “India s first Ayurveda Cancer Super-speciality Clinic with PET CT Scan Facility”  and “World's No.1 Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Company”, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
20. Naaz Stone Cut: The advertisement’s claim, “By Consuming Naaz Cut Capsule+ Syrup, kidney/urinal stone gets removed. It does not develop again and no need of operation”, was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
21. Bhagyesh Health & Beauty Care P. Ltd. (Height Grow Range of Products): The advertisement’s claim, “HEIGHT GROW - Ayurvedic Medicine,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
22. Ratan Ayurvedic (Ratans Heightop Syrup): The advertisement’s claims, “True companion in higher thinking” and “Heightop is helpful in increase the height of your self-confidence. Your Helper in making you very different and attractive,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
23. Hercules Healthcare (Long Looks Height Gain Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “World's Trusted Ayurvedic Capsules”, “Helpful in physical development” and misleading visuals, were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
24. Dr. Herring German Homoeo Company (Dr Herring German Homoeo Co Product): The advertisement’s claims, “Increases Height” and “Dissolving stone from kidney,” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
25. Sidhji Sevashram (Fakiri Tilla): The advertisement’s claim, “FAKIRI TILLA - Take 5 drops daily, and see the manly vigour,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
26. Sri Ganesh Nisargopchar Kendra: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of Paralysis,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
27. Sahar Herbal Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. (Sahar Herbal Pharmas Products): The advertisement’s claims, “S.S Oil / Powder Tested for increasing the power and size of penis”, “Diaba Cure for controlling sugar.”, “A sure shot medicine for piles P9 - L7 Capsule for Leukoria” and “Rasayankalp Powder - Eliminated discharge, Wet dreams, thinness of semen” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
28. Dr Rajguru Hair Care & Research Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “HRS is an effective treatment method  revised by famous Trichologist Dr. Ajay Rajguru which is prepared by Plant Stem Cells, Homeopathy, Bio Tissue Salts and herbs and is global standard and most beneficial. In which hair diseases are cured from the roots,” where the reference to baldness claims was found to be misleading by implication. Further the claim, “HRS Therapy is best option for hair transplant with low cost. - Safe in any,” and a misleading visual were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
29. Suneha Health Cut Care (Suneha Fat Churna): The advertisement’s claims, “Reduce Obesity without any side effect,”  “SUNEHA FAT CUT is an ayurvedic churna which reduces your stomach without making it weak and reduces excessive fat. Doesn't let increase stomach and obesity again. Makes body beautiful by making figure normal. Very beneficial for the ladies who has got obesity after delivery,” and misleading visuals were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and The Drugs & Cosmetics Act.
 
30. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin): The advertisement’s claim relating to remedy for “Premature Ejaculation" was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
31. Nurture Health care: The advertisement’s claim relating to remedy for “Premature Ejaculation" was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
32. Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. (Playwin capsules and oil): The advertisement’s claim, “Cure for Symptoms like Premature Ejaculation, Erectile Dysfunction, etc.,” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
33. Matru-Chhaya Clinic: The advertisement’s claim, “Successful treatment of childless couples” implies an assurance of prevention or cure of infertility, and this was not substantiated with clinical evidence.  Also, the claim is misleading by exaggeration.  Specific to the claims related to successful treatment for Infertility (childless couple), the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.
 
34. National Healthcare (National Plato Plus Ras): The advertisement’s claims, “Benefits of Plato Plus - extremely beneficial in dengue, chikungunya, viral fever, kalajar fever, malaria, typhoid. Increases platelets, eliminates pain of joints, increases immunity power and eliminates the pain due to arthritis”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration.
 
35. Guduchi The Ayurvedism (Obesidat): The advertisement’s claim, “lose six kilograms in just 12 weeks”, was not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and is misleading by exaggeration. Also, specific to the claims implying cure for obesity, and the visual showing obese persons, the advertisement is in breach of the law as it violated the DMR Act.
 
36. Vcare Skin & Slimming Clinic (Vcare Slim N Skin Clinic): The advertisement’s claim, “Reduce weight in just 24 hours”, is misleading by ambiguity and implication, as the advertiser is offering treatment for weight reduction in 24 sessions. Also, the advertiser did not submit any evidence of efficacy of their treatment and prove the weight reduction claims.
 
37. SBF Healthcare and Research Centre Private Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “Cost Effective” and “An option for people with Diabetes or Heart Disease” were not adequately substantiated with supporting evidence, and are misleading. It was noted that while the treatment is “scientifically proven nonsurgical treatment”, as there could be other such scientifically proven non-surgical treatments, claiming it be the “World’s first” is misleading by exaggeration.
 
38. Sundar Dezire Good Life Pvt. Ltd. (Dezire Goodlife Range Of Products): The advertisement’s claims, “Dezire - Sugarless Sweets”, “Low GI” and “Helps Blood Sugar Control”, were not substantiated with technical data or test reports.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.  
 
39. Abbott Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Pediasure Vanilla Delight): For the advertisement’s claim, “Almost 50% - Less Infection, More Growth” it was concluded that while the paper might have been published in "Clinical Pediatrics", the contents do not unequivocally and adequately support this claim. Also the CCC disagreed that the values can be rounded off by several units to 50 as done for the claim. Thus, the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
40. Nature And Science Ayurveda: The advertisement’s claims, “Eliminate Obesity, get healthy life”, “FAT.YPAR Enriched with Shilajeet” and “FAT.YPAR Juice is made by ayurvedic herbs. It is helpful in removing additional fat from the body. It also controls weight and makes body athletic. It also does not allow body weakness to come as it is enriched with Medohar Guggul and Shilajeet”, “For getting more benefits also use FAT.YPAR Capsules”, “DICURA PLUS SYRUP Worried from Sugar (Diabetes)”, “Dicura Plus Syrup from the first 15 days, controls the sugar related problems such as going for urination repeatedly, burning sensation in soles, pain in joints, Repeatedly being thirsty, Stiffness of hands and legs, etc.” and “Dicura plus controls the sugar in one month”  were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of  the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
41. Juvenor Pharmaceuticals (Muslinites Gold): The advertisement’s claim, “Helps in boosting vitality with the power of Swarna Bhasma Muslinites gold helps in overcoming fatigue, tiredness and revitalizing your energies with the proven benefits of time tested Ayurvedic Herbs like Musli, Shilajeet, Shatavari & Ashwagandha.” The advertisement also refers to MusliNite Tripti oil. The advertisement was considered to be, prima facie, in violation the D&C Act, specific for the parts on improvement of capacity of the human being for sexual pleasure.
 
42. Oplus Heart Center: The advertisement’s claims, “First time in Jharkhand successful treatment of heart blockage without operation, cuts, bypass and Angioplasty” and “Successful treatment of hundreds of patients till now” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation the DMR Act, specific for the parts on curing of heart diseases.
 
43. D S Research Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “An expert team of ayurvedacharya under guidance of the research team has been treating cancer patients successfully for over 50 years now. We shall be showcasing our success stories and spreading the message of Ancient Ayurveda based Nutrient Energy Treatment as a potent weapon against cancer” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
44. Kundan Kidney Care Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Now treatment of kidney fail patients is possible” and “We are treating kidney fail patients from last 35 years” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
45. Sri Sai Ayurvedic Hospital: The advertisement’s claims, “There is a successful treatment of reducing obesity in Ayurveda” and “Obesity can be eliminated by Utwardan Kiya through Panchkarma” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
46. Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda & Hospital: The advertisement’s claim, “Svarna Amruta Prashana is a unique Ayurveda Sanskara to boost intellect and memory in children’s. Camp being conducted by experienced team of Doctors who have helped lacs of children’s through this programme” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
47. Kalpa Foundation: The advertisement’s claims, “Are you afflicted by white spots, leprosy disease, rotten absorbed and deformed nails or other skin disease and fed up after doing treatment, then come to our hospital and gain the benefit through Ayurvedic Medicine and Ancient Technique, whose benefit has taken by hundreds of patients till now” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
48. Formula-Ten: The advertisement’s claim, “Useful homeopathic Gutika for complaints like Impotency, Premature Ejaculation” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
49. Stammering Relief Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Treatment in only two weeks, don't of the D&C Act.
 
50. Dr Nawal Kishore Hospital & Research Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Cure Diabetes with Stem Cell Therapy Obesity, Allergy, Thyroid, and Lipid Clinic” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
51. Praveen Surana Deaf Cure Centre: The advertisement’s claims, “Remove deafness and increase hearing capacity”, “Now deafness due to dried nerves and all types of disease of ear are not incurable. Cure deafness and improve your hearing loss. All types of deafness is been successfully removed without operation. Due to which patient starts listening in the first hour of treatment and can do treatment of in creation the capacity of hearing in construction of the future”, “Good news for all aged people suffering from deafness. Removes Deafness”, and “Remove deafness successfully without operation. Removes accurately deafness due to birth/ because of age/ side effect of medicine, hole in ear drums, Pus, dirt, smell. This treatment is a boon effective for deaf dumb also” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
52. Maa Homeo Chikitsha Kendra: The advertisement’s claims, “Women Diseases Tumour of Breast, Ovary, Uterus, Whiteness of hair and hair fall, mental problems, stone, Gall bladder, Kidney stone, etc. Other Complex Diseases Male Diseases, Liver, Chronic Renal Failure, etc.” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act and The Drugs & Cosmetics Act.
 
53. Naik Homeopathy Care & Cure Clinic: The advertisement’s claims, “Successful Treatment of Kidney Failure, Heart diseases, Liver failure, Cancer, Mental diseases, Infertility prevention/ Sexual problems, Arthritis/Spondylitis, Skin Diseases (Psoriasis), Obesity, Asthma and Depression / mentally challenged children” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
54. Gurudev Multispecialty Centre: The advertisement’s claim, “Without Operation through Homeopathic - Disc slip/Sciatica, joint pains, uterine tumour, Stone” was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
55. Apoorv Hi Tech: The advertisement’s claims, “Get Rid of obesity... Free from obesity and its related diseases. Freedom from obesity and diabetes increases your life upto 10 years,” and the advertisement’s misleading visual was considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
56. Adila Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (Asth Prash): The advertisement’s claims, “Keep distance from Inhaler (Pump)”, “100% better and fast result than any other Chawanprash”, “For Asthama Patients ,Ramban Medicine”, “ Asthprash Treatment of all these problems” and “Relief from Asthama and smoking cough” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
57. Adila Biotech Pvt Ltd (Asth Prash): The advertisement’s claims, “One Medicine Six Work.   Beneficial in Respiratory related diseases. Beneficial in Acute and Chronic Bronchitis. Gives relief in asthma and breathlessness. Reduces the side effects of pollution. Increases the immunity power. Helpful in removing the Taar of Tobacco”, “Sure shot medicine for Asthma Patients”, “Keep distance from inhaler” and “Use Surely for healthy life” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the D&C Act.
 
58. SBS Biotech Unit-II (More Power Capsule): The advertisement’s claims, “Helpful in Stunted Growth”, and “Beneficial ayurvedic capsule for growth deficiency” were considered to be, prima facie, in violation of the DMR Act and the D&C Act.
 
EDUCATION:-
 
The CCC found following advertisements of educational institutes by 4 different advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions. Hence complaints against these advertisements were UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’:
Siva Sivani Institute of Management, Oriental  Group  of Educational Institutions,  Datatec Group Of Institutions (Hannas Eng Inst) and Goodwill Institute of Security System and Automation Technology. 
 
PERSONAL CARE:
 
1. Emami Ltd. (Fair & Handsome 5 Action Fairness): The advertisement’s claim "long-lasting" implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product. However this was not substantiated and is misleading by implication. There was also disagreement on the modification of the advertisement by way of addition of a disclaimer “on regular use” as this was in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1. The complaint was Upheld.
 
2. Emami Limited (Fair and Handsome): The advertisement shows the protagonist with dark complexion being unattractive to girls, implying people with darker skin colour to be inferior and likely to be ignored by the opposite sex. It was concluded that the advertisement stereotypes people based on skin colour, implying people with darker skin colour to be inferior and likely to be ignored by the opposite sex and people with fair complexion to be more attractive drawing female attention. The advertisement contravened Clause 1 of the Guidelines of Advertising for Skin Lightening or Fairness Improvement Products (“Advertising should not communicate any discrimination as a result of skin colour. These ads should not reinforce negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin colour. Specifically, advertising should not directly or implicitly show people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned. These ads should not portray people with darker skin, in a way which is widely seen as, at a disadvantage of any kind, or inferior, or unsuccessful in any aspect of life….”). The complaint was Upheld.
 
3. Emami Limited (Fair and Handsome Fairness Cream): The advertisement’s claim, “breakthrough new formulation, “New”, was inadequately substantiated and is misleading as the formulation called as new was of year 2013 and hence was not “New” any more as per the ASCI guidelines for claiming “New”. Further the claim, “Long lasting fairness”, implies that the product provides the claimed effect “fairness” for some extended time after its use has stopped or for some extended duration after the last application of the product, which was not substantiated adequately over a reasonable time period by the advertiser by objective measurements and the claim is misleading by ambiguity and implication. Also, the qualifier “On regular usage, twice a day” was therefore considered to be in in contravention of the ASCI code on disclaimers Clause 1. The complaint was Upheld.
 
4. Advanced Hair Studio: The advertisement’s claim, “World’s largest company in hair replacement and hair retention,” is misleading by exaggeration. Also the claim, “4 unique procedures” was inadequately substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration. Further the claims, “No room for compromise” and “delivers a head full of hair” were not substantiated with proof of transformations achieved and treatment efficacy data, and is misleading by exaggeration. Lastly the claim, “Best of both worlds” and “Get Expert Advice” are misleading by ambiguity and implication as the claim, “Best of both worlds” was considered to be a vague statement and the claim, “Get Expert Advice” was not substantiated .
 
5. Greek Retail P. Limited Inocos Herbal Industries (Radyance Instant Skin Brightener): The advertisement’s claims, “Five shades fairer in two minutes”, “Instant Fairness by five shades”, “getting five shades fairer in mere minutes–and without the pain or high cost (40,000-50,000 rupees) of skin peels and laser treatments” are false, not substantiated with product efficacy data, are misleading by gross exaggeration and exploits consumers’ lack of experience and knowledge.  The online video and the advertorial displays pictures showing the efficacy being depicted via images of before and after usage of the product which are grossly misleading.  
 
6. Philips Electronics India Ltd. (Philips Electric Shaver): The advertisement with a visual depiction of a shaving razor as a cactus and a concerned look on the model, read in conjunction with the claim, “Electric Shaver - Cut the hair not the skin”, is misleading as it implies that shaving razors cut the skin and not the hair (which was not substantiated), and unfairly denigrates shaving razors in general.
 
7. Wipro Enterprises Ltd. (Chandrika soap): The advertisement’s claim, “9 out of 10 girls claim that Chandrika soap gives them clear skin because it has 2 times more oil and ayurvedic contents than any other natural soaps” was not substantiated and was misleading by ambiguity and implication as in the data provided by the advertiser was a quantitative study carried out by the advertiser is a consumer perception study conducted in year 2012 among users of Chandrika soap regarding product efficacy. There was no technical or clinical efficacy data presented to correlate the ingredients in the soap to product efficacy. There is no data submitted regarding the content of Ayurvedic herbs and its impact on product efficacy.
 
8. Active Roots: The advertisement’s claims, “India’s choice for hair transplant” and “India’s largest and most trusted hair transplant company”, were not substantiated with comparative data versus other similar clinics in the same category, or any third party validation or market research report to prove these claims.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.  
 
9. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Dettol Liquid Handwash): The advertisement’s claim, “Sabun se saccha hai, sabun se accha hai” is misleading by ambiguity and implication that liquid handwash is better than bar soaps in providing protection from diseases and infection. The hold duration of the disclaimers in the advertisement is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines.
 
FOOD & BEVERAGES:-
 
1. Borges India Private Limited (Borges Olive Oil): The advertisement’s claim, “India’s No.1 Olive Oil”, was misleading by ambiguity as it depicted / was associated with all the variants of olive oil marketed by Borges India and not restricted to the product variant “Borges Olive Oil- Extra Light in Taste” alone.
 
2. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd. (Seagram’s Royal Stag): The advertisement depicting the Royal Stag brand name and visual is a surrogate advertisement for a promotion of a liquor product – Seagram’s Royal Stag.  The advertisement is misleading by implication has reference to the words “Make it Large / Large jiyo” and contravened Chapters I.4 and III.6 (b) of the ASCI Code (“Whether there exists in the advertisement under complaint any direct or indirect clues or cues which could suggest to consumers that it is a direct or indirect advertisement for the product whose advertising is restricted by this Code.”). Also, the advertisement did not meet the requirements as per ASCI's Guidelines for Qualification of Brand Extension Product or Service and thereby contravened Chapter III.6 (a) of the ASCI Code (“Whether the unrestricted product which is purportedly sought to be promoted through the advertisement under the complaint is produced and distributed in reasonable quantities, having regard to the scale of the advertising in question, the media used and the markets targeted.”). 
 
3. Heinz India P. Ltd. (Complan Nutri Grow): The advertisement’s claim, “Complan Nutrigro has 11 immunity builders that increases immunity”, was not adequately substantiated in the age group of subjects for whom it is meant. Also, the advertisement targets normally nourished children (and potentially also certain categories like those with overactive immune systems) which was considered to be misleading by ambiguity as the advertised product may not build immunity in normal children with a normal diet.
 
4. Rakyan Beverages Limited (RAW Pressery): The advertisement’s claims, “best ways to rid your body of toxins.” and “Alkalizes your system and flushes out all your toxins”, were not substantiated with supporting scientific evidence. Also, the claim is misleading.  
 
5. Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd. (Surya Salt): The advertisement’s claims, “Scientists believe that we can get freedom from joint pain after regularly consuming Sanbhar salt. Other than this we can also avoid all stomach diseases, Acidity and skin diseases”, were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy. It was also of concern that this “food” product was promoted as a medical product with therapeutic claims. 
 
6. Today Tea Ltd. (Today Premium Tea): The advertisement’s claims, “Zero Fat”, “Rich in Calcium”, were not substantiated. Also, the claims are misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
7. K. Patel Phyto Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (Dot Shot): The advertisement’s claims, “Globally acclaimed, proven. Brighter morning after a hard partying night”, “Now no more morning blues, DOTSHOT an anti-hangover drink resolves it. DOTSHOT is a natural and safe drink to detoxify effect of alcohol from your body. It also replenishes vital electrolytes that overcome muscle cramps. It helps maintain muscle and nerve function. After that mad crazy night have the last shot of the night of anti-hangover drink and wake up fresh for a brighter morning ahead”, were not substantiated with proof of product efficacy.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.  
 
8. Hershey India Pvt. Ltd. (Hershey’s Spreads): The advertisement’s claim, “Goodness of almonds” which was attributed to the benefits of almond as a generic claim for a chocolate spread containing 3.0% almond paste, seen in conjunction with gesture in the visual implying improvement of intelligence and a voice over stating “badhate Bacchon ke liye”  is misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
9. Dabur India Ltd. (Real Wellnezz Jamun): The advertisement’s claim, “100% Juice content”, was substantiated, but the visual presentation of this claim in the advertisement is misleading by implication as it overly emphasizes on the visuals of Jamun in and around the 100% numerical drawn in purple juice, which implies that the product contains 100% jamun juice.  The reference to mixed fruit juice in the advertisement is, in comparison, very fleeting.
 
10. Gajanand Foods Private Limited (Gajanand Hing): The advertisement’s claims, “New & Improved.”,  “Controls Blood Sugar”,  “Controls high blood pressure”, “Gives Relief in body pain”,  “Effective for the problems of the teeth”,  “Reduces the risk of cancer” and “Gives relief from skin problems”,  were not substantiated with evidence of product efficacy, and are misleading by exaggeration. It was also of concern that this “food” product was promoted as a medical product with therapeutic claims.
 
OTHERS:
 
1. Fena Ltd. (Advanced Fena Detergent Powder): The advertisement’s claim “India’s No. 1 Quality Detergent Powder” was not adequately and undisputedly substantiated and the TVCs are misleading by ambiguity and implication as the product ranking and the disclaimer attempts to hide material information with respect to the claim - i) the ranking being among other low cost detergents and not among ALL marketed products to claim “All India” and ii) it pertained to overall score of the product and not “Quality” as claimed. The disclaimer in the Hindi advertisement is not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement. Also, the disclaimers in the TVCs are not in compliance with ASCI’s Guidelines for Disclaimers. 
 
2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (HP Ink Tank Printing): The advertisement shows an A4 size Black & White borderless photograph of Eiffel Tower being printed and the protagonist states that “Eiffel Tower sirf 10 paise mein”. It was noted that the 10 paise printing is possible only for certain limited coverage of black text matter (document printing) and not for a photographic image contrary to what is being depicted in the advertisement. It was also noted that the test sample and the photo used in the advertisement are very different, especially as the test sample is not about photo prints - it contains text, presentation sheets, small images (all pages with lots of unprinted area). Therefore the visual use of a photograph in the advertisement and emphasis on “re-invent the value of 10 paise” is misleading by gross exaggeration. Also, the disclaimers in the advertisement are not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement (Hindi), the disclaimer do not appear in conjunction with the claim and the hold duration of the disclaimers in the advertisement is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines.
 
3. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Reliance Jio Digital Life): The advertisement’s claim, “Best 4G Network with lowest data rates globally” is misleading by ambiguity and implication of it being among the best in the world.
 
4. TV Today Network Limited (Aaj Tak): The TV channel’s claims, “HSM Urban + Rural – No.1”, “HSM Urban – No.1”, “HSM Rural – No.1”, “All India Urban + Rural – No.1”,  “All India Urban- No.1”, “All India Rural – No.1”, “Prime Time – No.1”, were not substantiated and are misleading. The advertiser has referred to BARC data as a source for these claims. It was noted that as per “BARC India Ratings – Principles of Fair and Permissible Usage” the period of comparison for any claim of leadership should cover at least four consecutive weeks of data. However, as per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on single week (week 45’16) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. It was also opined, that continuing news update pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”. Therefore the basis for these claims with the source – “BARC TG15+ NCCS All, MKT: as mentioned, Time:- 2:00 – 26:00, 19:00 – 24:00, Period:- Wk:- 45”16, Share% based on 12 Hindi news channels”,  was not acceptable. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. The website advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication
 
5. TV Today Network Limited (Aaj Tak): The TV channel’s claim, “Aaj Tak’s urban viewership crossed India TV’s All India Viewership” –  Source : BARC, 08 Nov 16, TG 15+ NCCS AB, Time Band 2000-2400, imp'000, was not acceptable as it was opined that news pertaining to “demonetization” cannot be considered as an “event”.  The advertisement is misleading by ambiguity and implication. As per the disclaimer put by the advertiser for the claims is based on one day data (8th November 2016) and not four consecutive weeks of data as per BARC. Therefore it is violative of BARC Principles. The subject matter of comparison is chosen in such a way so as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case.  
 
6. Go Airlines (India) Ltd. (Go Air): The advertisement’s claim, “Fly smart with our low fares. Fares Starting from RS 736* (All inclusive)”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.
 
7. Berger Paints India Limited (Lewis Berger Weather coat Anti Dust Paint): The advertisement’s claim “Deewar pe dhool ko tikne na de, Kitni bhi dhool aaye ghar pe na tik paye" (does not let dust settle on walls regardless of the quantity of dust) was inadequately substantiated, and is misleading by exaggeration.  
 
8. Kent RO Systems Ltd. (Kent Air Purifiers): The advertisement’s claim, “Air Purifier de sabse shudh Hawa”, was not substantiated and is misleading by exaggeration.  
 
9. Global Consumer Products Private Limited (DND Turblo liquid vaporizer): The advertisement’s claim, “to give corner to corner mosquito prevention”, was inadequately substantiated as the test conducted did not check efficacy in the corners of a room of realistic shape and size, where stagnant dead spaces would be present despite forced convection.  The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The disclaimers in the advertisement are not in the same language as the audio of the advertisement (Hindi), and the hold duration of the disclaimers is not in compliance with the ASCI guidelines 
 
10. Sapna Infoway Private Ltd.: The advertisement’s claim that the price claim of “Rs. 491 less Discount 5 % off i.e. Net Rs. 466” and the claim that the “book is out of stock”, is false and misleading.
 
11. Accelyst Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Freecharge): The advertisement’s claim, “Upto Flat 100% cashback”, in smaller text it says, “Maximum cashback Rs.100”. It was noted that a vast majority of items are well above Rs.100 and would thus not be able to get the 100% cashback. It was further noted that this claim is contradictory to the conditions stated and concluded that the claim offer is misleading as the cashback being offered is limited to Rs.100/-.
 
12. Vaayu Home Appliances (India) P. Ltd. (Vaayu Chiller): The advertisement’s claims, “Gives AC like cooling in the budget of a cooler” and “save up to 90 percent of electricity compared to an AC”, were not substantiated.  Also, the claims are misleading by exaggeration.
 
13. TV TODAY Network Limited: The advertisement’s claims, “No.1 Prime Time News”, “India Today 30.8%, Times Now 24.5%, NDTV 23%, CNN News18 15.5%”, “Prime Time Prime Anchor Prime Channel”, ““The Undisputed No. 1” and “The Undisputed News Leader” are considered to be misleading by ambiguity and implication.
 
14. Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd (Television Division): Times Network in its slide has chosen to call its competition as ‘upstart’. In view of the other channels being established channels, the contention “Upstart competition” is not considered to be valid. 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Bhuveneshwar Gupta

2 years ago

It seems that ASCI is a private organisation. What is the objectivity and true effectiveness of their decisions. Is there no government body which could objectively regulate ads?

Allowing Fakes and Other Issues: Amazon’s Different Standards for Indian Consumers
Jeff Bezos founded Amazon with the mission to be ‘Earth’s Most Customer-Centric Company’. Amazon has, indeed, set global benchmarks for how to treat a consumer. A quick Google search will throw up innumerable articles, blogs and management books that extol Amazon’s consumer focus and offer tips on how to emulate it (three ways, five ways, seven ways to be customer-centric like Amazon, etc). Jeff Bezos is so obsessed with customer service that he is known to leave an empty chair at the conference table, telling attendees that it was occupied by the “the most important person in the room”—the customer. 
 
But, if you were at a panel discussion organised by the ministry of consumer affairs (MCoA) to celebrate World Consumer Day on 15th March, you would wonder if we were talking about the same company in India. Before going into details, a caveat. My experience with Amazon has been excellent, especially for Amazon fulfilled products (delivered directly by Amazon), usually cash on delivery (CoD), barring one exception. But more about that later.
 
At the MCoA discussion, which was titled, “Consumer Disputes Resolution in the Digital Age”, a couple of activists raised issues about Amazon that should have put Jeff Bezos on the next flight to India. Instead, Avinash Ramachandra, Amazon’s director, public policy (who was also on the panel), hasn’t found time to respond to my emailed questions for five days now, despite a reminder. Here are Amazon’s issues in India, a country that is important to Mr Bezos.
 
Fraud and Fakes: An activist with one of India’s largest consumer organisations purchased a cosmetic product made by a large multinational company (MNC) through Amazon. When it was over, she purchased the same product again. The second time around, she noticed that the label looked different, so she compared it with her previous purchase. It was, indeed, different. She wrote to the manufacturer and was told that the product was a fake. The MNC, quite correctly, refused to accept responsibility. The MNC told her that it has told Amazon about fakes and provided it with a list of its official distributors. Amazon’s response was rather stunning. 
 
Mr Ramchandra claimed that Amazon cannot be held responsible for allowing fakes to be sold from its platform, because the government does not allow it to be a direct retailer and it can only operate as an online marketplace. Consequently, it cannot control products that come into its pipeline, beyond preliminary checks. Why did it not accept products only from official distributors of the company? The Amazon representative said that the MNC should get them a court order to that effect. 
 
If anyone figures out why the world’s most customer-centric company needs a legal order to ensure it sells only genuine products, rather than harmful fake ones, please tell us. Meanwhile, we would like to know what Amazon means when its website promises 100% purchase protection, which includes a guarantee of genuine products. The website says, “Sellers are committed to sell only genuine products to customers on Amazon.in. All sellers listing their products on Amazon.in are required to enter an agreement to list and sell only genuine products.” Are these mere words?
 
Three Strikes and Out: The consumer activist asked why a distributor caught selling a fake product was not blacklisted immediately. Moreover, when Amazon realises it has sold fakes (especially cosmetics), shouldn’t there be a recall of all products supplied by that seller? Amazon had no answer. Instead, Mr Ramachandra went into an elaborate explanation of Amazon’s policies and how sellers who indulge in dubious practices are given three warnings before being blacklisted. Should every seller get three chances, no matter how serious the offence? Forget about product recalls, the consumer activist said that the seller continues to operate on Amazon. 
 
We were also told about Amazon’s system of user-driven customer reviews, where even the most negative ratings are faithfully listed. This, again, is a half-truth. Certain issues, especially problems in Amazon’s service delivery, are not allowed to be uploaded by its algorithm. Consider my own example. I purchased a dhurrie from Amazon that had no CoD option and was to be delivered a good nine days later, which I could track online. There was a courier number of DHL. However, things came to a halt when the product was actually to be delivered. On receiving no further information, I called DHL only to find that the parcel number listed there was false, since DHL only handles international deliveries (first lie). 
 
On escalating the issue through a chat, Amazon gave me the seller’s number and asked me to connect with him. A conversation with the seller’s representative was an eye-opener.  He claimed he did not have my number (second lie). He also admitted that the parcel had not been couriered at all, but he had brought it along since he was going to be at a fair in Mumbai. He further said that he could only deliver the product three days later when the fair ended. It seemed pointless to cancel the order, if the product was in the city. I agreed. On the day of delivery, the seller told me that the product I had ordered wasn’t available (he probably sold it at the fair) and offered me other options (he sent photos on WhatsApp). By then, I was fed up of the whole experience and wasn’t looking at another battle to get my money back. So, I accepted an alternative which was smaller than the product I had purchased. 
 
From Amazon’s perspective, I needn’t have accepted the alternative product, so I have no complaints about it. But wouldn’t a customer-centric company want to know about the resolution of an escalated complaint? Was the seller even reprimanded for the multiple lies and shoddy delivery? Did it trigger any of the three strikes? I have no clue; nor did I hear any regret for the mess. Instead, a month later, just after the 15th March consumer seminar I referred to, I received a routine mailer asking me to review the product. On trying to post my experience as a review, I was startled to find it got rejected. On reading the review guidelines, I gathered that only product-related details are permitted; service issues need to be mailed as feedback. I didn’t find any feedback button!
 
Apni Dukaan or Haat/Marketplace?
Amazon’s peppy advertisements encourage you to consider it as ‘Apni Dukaan’, or your own shop. But that is false. Mr Ramachandra insisted that Amazon is merely a marketplace—like a ‘haat’ or fair—where different producers stock their goods and take responsibility for what they sell. He seemed to argue that it was the government’s fault that Amazon wasn’t allowed to be a retailer, and so its services in India weren’t what the world has come to accept. 
 
But hasn’t Amazon come to India with its eyes open and chosen to operate in this market, with all the constraints? Whatever may be my sympathies on the policy issue, how can Amazon use this as an excuse for something as egregious as the sale of fake products in Apni Dukaan? Remember, Amazon is already facing a class action overseas for the practice of bumping up product prices to be able to show a fantastic deal. There have been such complaints in India to the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), which has upheld the charges of misleading advertising, despite Amazon’s aggressive legal defence. 
 
Since all this was played out before the secretary and top officials of the MCoA, one will also wait to see whether they are even alive to the issues of online retail and the much-touted digital policy of the government. More importantly, if this is the situation with Amazon, which is consumer-focused, one can only wonder what is happening with scores of other online ‘marketplaces’ that have been proliferating over the past decade.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Shomita Mukherjee

1 year ago

This is what I wanted to post on Amazon and they rejected it because it was a negative review for Cloudtail. Cloudtail seller should be blacklisted

If possible I would like to review the seller, Cloudtail. I ordered for Logitech C270 HD Webcam but instead received a much cheaper Logitech computer mouse!! This is the second time I have ordered an item from Cloudtail and received a cheaper item. I had lodged a complaint then too and have seen other complaints against Cloudtail but seems like Amazon does not take these reviews seriously.

Ram

1 year ago

Amazon's return policy is not the true one. Customer care people's are giving wrong and misleading information. I feel i hv been bluffed and cheated.

Arun Venkateswaran

2 years ago

I ordered a laptop on Amazon,it came in an open package. Now they wont give me a refund only replacement as per their policy. The box has not even been opened by me yet they wont offer a refund for a damaged product sent by them. Customer protection needs to improve tremendously to protect indian consumers from mnc's having Indian managers who have no clue about Service levels

Vinay Chaudhari

2 years ago

My experience with Amazon India since last five years has been really great but then I am very cautious in selecting sellers - I preferred related entities (Cloudtail, Olympia and so on) as first choice. I buy only prime products (as delivery and returns are handled by Amazon). I check seller ratings. I of course check product reviews but I also go through product Q&A to see how seller has responded. I am generally ready to pay a bit extra for a better seller but in my experience better sellers also has the best price in 95% cases. I do this for all my purchases from elsewhere as well as.

sameer ranade

2 years ago

ebay is worse! I purchased an Apple laptop and when it was delivered it i noticed that there were dents in the underbody corner. i raised a claim guarantee and also spoke to Ebay and the seller. But as was expected...to no avail. The seller agreed to immediately replace the product (a high end Apple laptop!). Admission of guilt??!! but refused to refund the money. Ebay would give no reason for rejecting the claim. I pointed out that the product description did not mention anything about dents and hence was entitled to a refund. A legal notice (sent twice!) to Ebay elicited a courtesy response the second time and nothing thereafter. Probably normal course of business for them!

Sunil Prakash

2 years ago

Online marketing DUKANS are getting big frauds. The companies are looking for their own booty and not what vendors are selling on their sites.

amazon is a big cheat. Fake goods, defective and priced more than MRP.

Ministry of Consumers Affairs and Ministry of commerce and ministry of digital india is keeping a blind eye. cases are filed with police on frauds, but they are also being taken lightly by Cyber crime.

we seems to be with thugs both at commerce and the Government.

Yazdi Tantra

2 years ago

Another harrowing incident - http://www.dailyo.in/voices/amazon-india-online-retail-sony-india-smartphones-customer-service-illegal-trading-uae-national-security-threat/story/1/12123.html
In this case, a fake was identified and reported to Amazon, but they refused to help the customer and left him to fend for himself!
Although, by and large I have been satisfied with Amazon, such stories scare you and deter you from buying big ticket items from Amazon.
Is anyone listening?

MOHAN SIROYA

2 years ago

This is the second time that Sucheta Dalal's day high light story appears on net and I also have a story ready on the same topic.It happened with her online petition to the Governor RBI, for arresting unreasonable banking service charges and I got a chance to bolster up that with my terrible experience with the IDBI Bank. Now this Amazon story has also my story about the terrible "Customer Service" experience from amazon . I had placed a order for an Automatic Washing Machine slated for delivery between 10 am-1 pm. Instead without informing me they changed the slot from my choice of 10 am to 8 a.m. slot for 30 March. Since the deliveryman knocked at 8-30 a.m. ,none was available to take delivery. Re-scheduled delivery was confirmed by Service executive on 31 March between 10 am to 1 p.m. What transpired thereafter is complained by me on 31 March as under:
"The CEO
Amazon.in
 "Above order  is destined to be returned to the seller " was the bolt from the blue.
Had U kept your Service Executive who spoke tome on 30 March 2320 p.m informed about this?.  He Was extra helpful, ignorant of latest updates. When I told that it appears wrongly worded button I pressed which says something for "Product return", Web only had flashed next day Delivery schedule between 1-30--- 10 30 pm slot. Button asked Wish to Cancell? I thought it is for cancelling the delivery slot so pressed but it resulted in a never imagined disaster. When said this to Mr. Danish,, he assured not to worry for that, but asked me what help I want for the product. I was happy .Requested  him to deliver next day viz; 31 Mar between 10 -1 p.m.slot. He confirmed and took a very high rating for himself, for a product which was not deliverable.
Second episode  of  Chat with one Mr. Satyender on 31 March about 4 p,.m. He just avoided his duty to handle any query about this as the product falls under "Large Appliances Team ". He has escalated for help to them  and that department will speak to me . Chat Over.
For next 2 hours no alert /message came . So in frustration requested for phone call.
Third Episode Mr. Suhas spoke to me . First he heard and agreed with all what I said, But when we reached for "Help" he said "If you want frank opinion, NOBODY CAN HELP YOU IN THIS MATTER as the product is in Transit for Return".
Now was my turn to get more confused. I said till now in my order page ,it still shows status as "Product to be delivered  beween 1-30 -10 30 p.m. slot on 31 Mar. At 4 p,m, Chat service man said it is to be handled by some other team and never said what truth was as you are telling. Why did   Mr. Danish   promised the delivery  between 10- 1 p,m, slot as was desired by me on 31 March ,Why did he say or even assured me that  no effect will come because I had pressed the cancellation for delivery slot button? Mr. Suhas could not give any reply but felt sorry and apologized. When I said were those  Service Reps were ignorant about this "Status" then he sheepishly said may be .
The million $ question is why the big online worldwide seller AMAZON  employ such system or personnel who are not updated with actual STATUS of the order and incur more Customer wrath ? Amazon will cry hoarse in telling the world that they the best in the area of 'Customer Satisfaction.
What will they call  about this TERRIBLE experience of one loyal old customer ?
Perhaps your highly qualified people do not know the Definition of Customer Satisfaction . Perhaps ROBOTS ( Who do not have human brains)have devised your website for active orders without knowing that for a mere inconvenient delivery time why a customer who already paid for the product will CANCEL it?
Yes, after delivery or seeing the product if the consumer is not satisfied,    at that point after getting feedback, Amazon could give that CHOICE to return the product thru' Amazon Courier  for refund of money. That can be understood and appreciated as a fair and consumer centric seller. Lesser online sellers like Snapdeal, Shop clues or even Indian giant Flipcart do that way. Why amazon has different para metres ?
It will be interesting to see  what Amazon has to say on the above "Terrible Customer Experience".

Thanking you
..
Mohan Siroya
Amazon now repeatedly says only "Sorry" and no more elaboration.

The CEO
Amazon.in
 "Above order  is destined to be returned to the seller " was the bolt from the blue.
Had U kept your Service Executive who spoke tome on 30 March 2320 p.m informed about this?.  He Was extra helpful, ignorant of latest updates. When I told that it appears wrongly worded button I pressed which says something for "Product return", Web only had flashed next day Delivery schedule between 1-30--- 10 30 pm slot. Button asked Wish to Cancell? I thought it is for cancelling the delivery slot so pressed but it resulted in a never imagined disaster. When said this to Mr. Danish,, he assured not to worry for that, but asked me what help I want for the product. I was happy .Requested  him to deliver next day viz; 31 Mar between 10 -1 p.m.slot. He confirmed and took a very high rating for himself, for a product which was not deliverable.
Second episode  of  Chat with one Mr. Satyender on 31 March about 4 p,.m. He just avoided his duty to handle any query about this as the product falls under "Large Appliances Team ". He has escalated for help to them  and that department will speak to me . Chat Over.
For next 2 hours no alert /message came . So in frustration requested for phone call.
Third Episode Mr. Suhas spoke to me . First he heard and agreed with all what I said, But when we reached for "Help" he said "If you want frank opinion, NOBODY CAN HELP YOU IN THIS MATTER as the product is in Transit for Return".
Now was my turn to get more confused. I said till now in my order page ,it still shows status as "Product to be delivered  beween 1-30 -10 30 p.m. slot on 31 Mar. At 4 p,m, Chat service man said it is to be handled by some other team and never said what truth was as you are telling. Why did   Mr. Danish   promised the delivery  between 10- 1 p,m, slot as was desired by me on 31 March ,Why did he say or even assured me that  no effect will come because I had pressed the cancellation for delivery slot button? Mr. Suhas could not give any reply but felt sorry and apologized. When I said were those  Service Reps were ignorant about this "Status" then he sheepishly said may be .
The million $ question is why the big online worldwide seller AMAZON  employ such system or personnel who are not updated with actual STATUS of the order and incur more Customer wrath ? Amazon will cry hoarse in telling the world that they the best in the area of 'Customer Satisfaction.
What will they call  about this TERRIBLE experience of one loyal old customer ?
Perhaps your highly qualified people do not know the Definition of Customer Satisfaction . Perhaps ROBOTS ( Who do not have human brains)have devised your website for active orders without knowing that for a mere inconvenient delivery time why a customer who already paid for the product will CANCEL it?
Yes, after delivery or seeing the product if the consumer is not satisfied,    at that point after getting feedback, Amazon could give that CHOICE to return the product thru' Amazon Courier  for refund of money. That can be understood and appreciated as a fair and consumer centric seller. Lesser online sellers like Snapdeal, Shop clues or even Indian giant Flipcart do that way. Why amazon has different para metres ?
It will be interesting to see  what Amazon has to say on the above "Terrible Customer Experience"
.Now repeatedly Amazon just says Sorry in reply ,and nothing else.
Thanking you

Mohan Siroya


Sugumar Iyer

2 years ago

An online seller is not a manufacturer or wholesaler. The company is only a coordinator. They depend on a supply chain either from a manufacturer or a wholesale/ retail seller.
I feel that though there are agreements and protective clauses in the agreements between the Etailer and supplier, it is a very difficult to act immediately against the seller. My point is that unless the manufacturer / retailer is honest and devoted to customer focus, Amazon by itself cannot act and prevent. However if they compensate the buyer/public and black list or stop dealing with the product/ supplier, it may act as a deterrent for such spurious suppliers.

Subba Rao

2 years ago

In their haste to be the No.1 e-tailer in the country, Amazon India seems to be cutting corners going by the instances stated in the article. But it is also a common view that some of the MNCs seem to hold that they can go scot-free even if they provide sub-standard service/products to Indian masses.

Anand Vaidya

2 years ago

Amazon does source and sell from its own subsidiary - Cloudtail, isn't it? I always try to get my orders fulfilled from Cloudtail if there is a choice.

REPLY

Shomita Mukherjee

In Reply to Anand Vaidya 1 year ago

I was cheated by Cloudtail twice. I purchased 12 packets of wet catfood, paid the money for 12 and received only 1. When I complained i was told that was the price for 1!!. Nonsense, i have been buying it for ages and know the price. I now avoid any product sold by Cloudtail.

venkat

2 years ago

I feel Amazon India's service , nowadays, is deteriorating. Recently i purchased a product, & what i observed after delivery, was they were providing this product above MRP, though i commented them with this details. They didn't respond.

Abhijit Gosavi

2 years ago

Unbelievable! I'm guessing there are more people up to fraud in India. Sounds so cliche, but true. Having said that, if complaints are lodged with Amazon about a supplier's lack of ethics, Amazon should immediately stop working with that supplier, unless the supplier gives the customer a full refund.

I'll tell you of my own experience with a supplier once. I got a second-hand book that looked very old. I complained, and they (the supplier) immediately refunded me. Also, whenever I write to Amazon, even if they say they'll respond in 48 hours, they respond in less than 4 hours. But, again, that is Amazon in the U.S.

REPLY

Abhijit Gosavi

In Reply to Abhijit Gosavi 2 years ago

Must add that this is another brilliant piece. Maybe you should combine many of these pieces and compile them into a book on case studies in Revenue Management and Project Management. Management students should find it very useful.

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to Abhijit Gosavi 2 years ago

Thanks Abhijit for being so supportive. I think the book is a great idea. Must look at an e-book that will be available to a lot of people.

Raman Kalia

2 years ago

Well... It requires a lot of awareness and an equal amount of responsibility as well. On getting a good deal that delivers a working product, we don't even bother to verify it's genuineness. I personally feel markets of fake products don't impact that way. We are supposed to question every purchase and validate it on grounds of same principle that we would lean on in the events of failure or receipt of a fake products.

https://knowfakes.com/corp/Counterfeit_p_2.html

I've tried covering this in my article above.

REPLY

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to Raman Kalia 2 years ago

Hi Raman. It was good to meet you at the delhi Seminar. will connect on email! Lets do things together for the consumer!

Ashok Kumar Gupta

2 years ago

You are correct. All Ecom sites are same in behaviour. I found on Amazon that they jack up the price and then say free shipping. It's your bad luck if get fake /inferior product. What to tell about Ecom sites, even retailer is not responsible for the product genuiness they sell

FTC Sues Operators of Alleged Patent Scam
Before the Mac, there was the Lisa, an Apple computer that flopped so hard in the early ’80s that thousands of unsold units are said to be buried in the Nevada desert. So suffice to say that not every invention takes off. 
 
Yet Florida-based World Patent Marketing (WPM) promised the moon to aspiring inventors no matter the product. Every idea was a great one. Based on these assurances, thousands of consumers paid thousands of dollars for WPM’s patent and invention promotion services. But eventually consumers found that WPM’s enthusiasm was itself a product of invention. A recent FTC complaint against the company alleges:
 
A very few receive a patent, some receive an assortment of useless marketing materials; but none successfully enter into third-party licensing or manufacturing agreements brokered by Defendants, and none actually make money. Indeed, many of Defendants’ customers end up in debt, or losing their life savings or inheritances, after investing in Defendants’ broken promises.
 
Even inventions touted as “success stories” on the company’s website are flops, the complaint alleges. And despite WPM’s claims of offering “global” patent protection, the patents did not exempt customers from having to pay fees to foreign countries for patent protection, according to the complaint.
 
In addition, the company sought to stifle negative reviews with threats of legal action, for example, telling a refund-seeking customer who mentioned filing a complaint with the BBB that she had “proceeded far beyond what the law defines as free speech,” the FTC alleges.
 
A federal court has temporarily halted WPM’s operation following the FTC complaint, which seeks a permanent end to the company’s deceptive business practices and restitution for consumers.
 
Find more of our coverage on invention here.
 

 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)