Indrajeets IQuanta Edu Services Private Limited - iQuanta

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

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 option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims in the advertisement or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data.  The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and neither did they submit their written response.    The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the Facebook advertisement and considered the complaint.   The CCC observed that no response was received from the advertiser prior to the prescribed due date as specified by the ASCI Secretariat.    Upon careful consideration of the complaint and in the absence of response from the advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claim, “CAT 99.99%iler / GMAT 770”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data such as names, dates, scorecards, confirmation that the individuals cited are involved in IPMAT coaching. The scores mentioned for CAT and GMAT are for different postgraduate exams and are not directly relevant to IPMAT, which has a different syllabus and exam pattern. Claim, “CAT & SNAP 99%iler”, was not substantiated with verifiable supporting data such as names, scorecards, dates, confirmation that the individuals with these scores are involved in the IPMAT program. The advertiser uses results from CAT and SNAP exams that are academically unrelated to IPMAT to promote IPMAT coaching. The advertisement implies that high scores in these exams reflect superior teaching ability for IPMAT. The said claims were not substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of students. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.  This complaint was UPHELD