The direction came after a Thrissur-based consumer approached the commission and filed a case against the Ayurveda company, the actor and the medical shop from where the product was purchased.
The petitioner submitted that the advertisement featuring the actor was first aired in 2010 which guaranteed hair growth in six weeks. Convinced by the advertisement in which the Malyalam actor promised that the use of the product will assure lush hair growth, the petitioner purchased the product for Rs 376 hoping that his hair would grow.
However, the petitoner asserted that despite using the product his hair did not grow as claimed in the advertisement and failed to show any promised outcome.
Thereafter, he moved the commission.
He submitted that he lost his money as the cream made false claims of being effective in regrowing hair within 6 weeks. He added that he had to face humiliation and mental agony as he became the 'laughing stock of society' for having faith in a hair growth cream advertisement, thereby, seeking a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the humiliation that he had to face.
In the instant case, the commission observed that there was a newspaper advertisement that appeared in a Malayalam daily in 2012 featuring the actor saying "Hair growth is guaranteed. Just within six weeks, the result will be threefold."
It also included statements such as, "I was afraid that I would turn bald but used ****** hair cream for six weeks and my hair grew nicely".
As per a recent report by
Live Law, when the actor was inquired about the efficiency of the product, he told the commission that the advertisers did not seek his permission before advertising the product and he was not aware of the specificities of the product.
"I took part in the ad about hair protection, not hair growth. I don't know about the advertisement. It is their story. But as part of the advertisement, a video shoot had been done," the actor stated.
He added that he was actually using a remedy that was used by his mother.
However, finding his submission inadequate, the commission repudiated the actor for endorsing a product he did not personally use or have knowledge about and instructed him along with the Ayurveda company to pay a compensation of 10,000 each to the complainant.
It has to be noted that under the Consumer Protection Law, the misleading ads guidelines have put the onus on endorsers (such as actors, sportspersons and even social media influencers) who are now required to substantiate their claims in ads and do due diligence on products they promote. The endorsers have also been allowed to seek advice from an advertising "self-regulatory" organisation or and independent practitioner regarding the honesty of the statements in their endorsements. If found guilty, celebrities can be fined up to Rs 10 lakh. For repeat offences, this may rise to Rs 50 lakh, with a jail term of up to five years under the law.
The medical shop, on the other hand, contended the submission of the petitioner stating that the pros and cons of the product are mentioned on the product and the brochure also indicated that it can have different impacts on different users.
"This had been mentioned in the precaution section of the brochure. But often, these are printed in such a way that it is not even visible when looked at even with the help of a magnifying glass," commission President CT Sabu observed in the order.
Thereby, the medical shop from which the petitioner purchased the product was directed to pay a sum of Rs 3000.
The forum criticized this continuous trend of using and realistic advertisement as marketing strategies to leave or consumers into purchasing products that are not up to the standard.
It observed, "Newspapers and the media have reduced themselves to channels to promote brands and have forgotten their duties as journalists.…Advertisements spark consumerist desire in people…a ploy to make people to buy useless products".
The forum further added, "Advertisements should foster the growth of an informed consumer culture, enabling consumers to choose wisely and reject products that are spurious or deceptive."
Meanwhile, the Ayurveda company has issued a statement as quoted by
Live Mint, "All Dhathri Ayurveda products undergo extensive clinical studies conducted by independent labs and the results are registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI). This dispute pertains to an advertisement that appeared in 2012 around the product Dhathri Hair Protector and the case was registered in 2012."
"The disputed advertisement has not been used for many years now. However, the company vigorously defends its claims as they have scientific backing and the Dhathri Hair Protector is registered with CTRI holding the number CTRI /20L3/OS/003644. Dhathri Ayurveda is committed to providing authentic and effective wellness solutions manufactured under the most stringent quality standards and all advertisement claims where applicable will have the complete backing of scientific evidence, " the firm added.
To read the official order (in Malyalam) click on the link below-
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd