Anil Sharma's Classes - Anil Sharma’s Classes

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS)

The ASCI approached the advertiser (yourselves) for their response in addressing the objection raised in the 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, or to alternately substantiate the claim with the required supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for personal meeting / telecon with the ASCI Secretariat. The advertiser did not seek IR of the complaint or a personal meeting / telecon with the ASCI Secretariat but submitted their response. The Advertiser in their response stated that the word “Best Faculty” used in the advertisement is generic in nature and denotes a faculty having in-depth knowledge of the subject as well as experience and command over the subject. The advertiser acknowledged that they have not compared any other institution or faculty and asserted that they have a very highly favourable public opinion for the institute and its faculty members. Advertiser referred to the google reviews in favour of Anil Sharma’s Classes posted by their students. The advertiser also questioned ASCI’s authority for monitoring such claims. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the print advertisement and observed that the advertiser’s response had only assertions about the claim. Regarding the advertiser’s comment on ASCI’s jurisdiction, the CCC referred to the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled “Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India and Ors”, which affirmed and recognised the self-regulatory mechanism put in place by self-regulatory bodies as an effective pre-emptive step to statutory provisions in the sphere of media regulation. The grievance redressal platform provided by self-regulatory bodies, therefore, function as the first step for aggrieved consumers against content in the media which might not be in line with the existing laws. The CCC also advised that the advertiser should take cognizance of the MoU the Department of Consumer Affairs has entered into with ASCI to carry out ‘Suo Moto’ surveillance of potentially misleading advertisements. The CCC noted that the advertiser did not have any basis for making any superlative claim regarding their faculty. The CCC did not consider advertiser’s Google review data as reliable evidence. The CCC concluded that the claim was not substantiated with any market survey data or with any verifiable comparative data of the advertiser’s institute and other similar institutes in Rajasthan, to prove that the faculty from their institute is better than all the rest, in providing coaching for CA exams, or through a third party validation. The claim “Rajasthan's Best Faculty for C.A. Coaching” is misleading by exaggeration and implication. The CCC was of the opinion that it is not possible for the advertiser to conduct a comparative study to generate claim support data for this superlative claim given the nature of the educational sector and number of such coaching institutes. The claim is likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers including students. The print advertisement contravened Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions and Programs as well as Chapters I.1, I.4 and I.5 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.