Orient Electric Limited - Orient Electric
Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public
The Consumer Complaints Council Review (CCC-R) panel through a personal hearing, heard the arguments of the advertiser and the complainant. Both, the advertiser and the complainant were present to make their submissions via meeting with the CCC-R panel. The technical expert who reviewed the supporting evidence provided to the CCC-R panel was also present.
The CCC-R panel noted the following submissions made by the advertiser:
The advertiser described the Aero O2 as a plasma-ion air detoxifier attached to the central underside of a ceiling fan. The technology was stated to use a high-voltage current to break down certain oxidised pollutants and neutralise microbes. The advertiser further explained that the device does not generate oxygen but claims to recover oxygen through the breakdown of oxidised pollutants.
The advertiser submitted that the patent had been granted for the purifier device and its plasma-ion technology, rather than for the ceiling fan itself, or the fan-purifier combination. The patent documentation referred to breaking down pollutants, neutralising microbes and recovering oxygen, but did not establish the numerical performance outcomes claimed in the advertisement.
The advertiser explained that conventional ceiling fans circulate air, while conventional air purifiers generally use HEPA filters to trap particles based on their size. In contrast, the Aero O2's plasma-ion technology breaks down certain gases and neutralise microbes at the molecular level. The advertiser also explained that the 24V BLDC ceiling fan converts AC to DC, while the patented 12V DC detoxifier unit is affixed to the fan.
The CCC-R panel raised queries regarding the basis of the 90% oxygen recovery claim in eight hours and the calculation supporting the claim.
The advertiser stated that the testing was conducted by an NABL-accredited laboratory in a sealed room after pollutants had entered naturally. The device was tested with the fan both switched off and switched on. The advertiser explained that the 90% oxygen recovery claim was based on the increase in oxygen levels observed during testing and did not mean that the oxygen concentration reached 90%. The advertiser further stated that oxygen levels in a healthy indoor environment should be approximately 20.8% and that pollutants in a closed room could reduce these levels. The claimed recovery was calculated relative to the initial oxygen level.
When asked whether the change in oxygen levels would be noticeable, the advertiser stated that this would vary between individuals but maintained that the claimed result could be achieved under suitable household conditions.
The CCC-R panel raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the device under normal household conditions, particularly where windows remained open. The advertiser acknowledged that open windows would allow outside air to replace the cleaned pockets of air.
Regarding the claim of "99.99% Microbe Neutralisation", the advertiser explained that the plasma technology vaporises water molecules inside the cells. The laboratory tests conducted over periods ranging from two to eight hours showed a significant reduction in microbes.
Regarding the claim of "75% Less Toxic Gases", the advertiser stated that the same molecular breakdown principle applied. The pollutants tested were selected to represent typical household pollutants rather than industrial pollutants.
The CCC-R panel noted the following submissions made by the complainant:
The complainant stated that he would rely on the technical findings and expert reviews already available to the panel. He submitted that the product listing containing the original claims remained active on Amazon after the review deadline, although it had been removed from the brand's website. Further, evidence of inquiries made with fan dealers showed that the product was available on order, indicating that it remained available in the market and that consumers could continue to be exposed to the claims.
The CCC-R Decision
The CCC-R panel noted that the matter pertained to the review of the CCC recommendation relating to `Aero O2 Oxygen Enriching Fan’, wherein the claims, "90% Oxygen Recovery in 8 Hours", "99.99% Microbe Neutralisation", and "75% Less Toxic Gases", were examined.
The CCC-R panel further considered the detailed test reports on environmental parameters, microbial reduction, oxygen, odour and smoke, NABL certificate, and patent documents submitted by the advertiser as part of their review submissions.
Claim – “90% Oxygen Recovery in 8 Hours”
The CCC-R panel observed that the test report did not specify which common or uncommon pollutants were processed or affected by the technology, whether the pollutants were added or occurred naturally, or what levels of pollutants were required for oxygen recovery. It was not clear whether oxygen recovery would occur in the absence of pollutants or under what conditions the claimed recovery could be achieved.
The panel discussed that the report did not explain what happened to the residual parts of the pollutants following breakdown, whether they were rendered inert or transformed into other substances that could be injurious. It also did not explain the effects on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), if present, or identify the chemical composition of the residual pollutants.
The report did not provide details of the instruments used for oxygen measurements, including their sensitivity, limits of detection, make, model number and operating settings. Although the report defined percentage change or reduction, it did not provide a mathematical definition of oxygen recovery.
The CCC-R panel further discussed that the testing conditions were not representative of usual conditions in most Indian homes, where temperatures and humidity are generally higher. Therefore, the product’s performance under normal household conditions was not established. Maintaining the testing conditions would require air conditioning, which could also contribute to the claimed performance.
The test report did not explain how the product’s performance would change with daily use over its lifespan, which was relevant given that ceiling fans are durable products that may last for several years. The panel observed that the test report showed an increase in oxygen levels during testing. However, this did not support the claim of “90% Oxygen Recovery in 8 Hours”.
The CCC-R panel discussed that consumers do not use ceiling fans in sealed, unfurnished rooms and that realworld use often involves partially or fully open windows. It was also noted that opening a window could restore oxygen levels more quickly than the fan. These considerations raised concerns about the relevance of the test conditions to normal household use.
The advertiser stated that the patent documents established the product’s performance. The panel observed that the patent testing involved air flowing directly through the device, whereas the fan setup operated differently, with only a portion of the air passing through the device. The panel was of the view that performance claim therefore has to be supported by tests conducted on the fan itself and limited to the conditions tested, including temperature, relative humidity and the pollutants initially present. The patent documents did not, by themselves, establish the specific numerical performance claimed for the fan.
The advertiser also referred to the website FAQs. However, the FAQs did not provide or refer to test data demonstrating performance under general conditions and did not address the concerns regarding the pollutants, the substances remaining after their breakdown, the testing conditions, and the calculation of oxygen recovery.
Claim – “99.99% Microbe Neutralisation”
The CCC-R panel observed that the advertiser submitted a test report from a third-party NABL-accredited test house. The testing was conducted in a closed room under specified temperature and relative humidity conditions. The test used different microbes on testing plates rather than in airborne aerosols. The air was not introduced with these microbes to better validate the claim.
The panel discussed that the report did not clearly specify whether the test plates were placed at one or multiple locations in the room nor did it identify those locations. It was also unclear whether the locations represented different surfaces where microbes could be present. The plates were placed horizontally and not vertically to simulate surfaces such as walls and drapes. The drapes themselves were not tested.
The CCC-R panel further discussed that the report did not explain how the product’s microbe neutralisation performance would change with daily use over its lifespan. This was relevant given that ceiling fans are durable products that may last for several years. The testing conditions were not representative of usual conditions in Indian homes, where temperatures and humidity are generally higher. Therefore, the product’s performance under normal household conditions was not established. Maintaining the reported conditions would require air conditioning, which could also contribute to the claimed performance.
The initial value for yeast and mould was recorded as zero but subsequently increased, indicating a possible adverse effect of the purifier.
The results at the end of the test period varied across the microbes tested and the locations reported. Some showed no reduction, while others showed varying levels of reduction. The results indicating the highest reduction were limited to one location, with lower reductions at the other locations. When all locations were considered, the results did not establish the claimed level of microbe reduction
The CCC-R panel observed that the report referred to various testing standards, including IS 5887, which covers methods for detecting bacteria responsible for food poisoning and is not directly relevant to air or surface sampling.
Claim – “75% Less Toxic Gases”
The CCC-R panel discussed that the test report did not provide details of the instruments used to measure respirable dust, fine particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including their sensitivity, limits of detection and operating settings. The testing conditions were not representative of usual conditions in Indian homes, where temperatures and humidity are generally higher. Therefore, the product’s performance under normal household conditions was not established. Maintaining the reported conditions would require air conditioning, which could also contribute to the claimed performance.
The panel further discussed that the report did not explain how the product’s performance would change with daily use over its lifespan, which was relevant given that ceiling fans are durable products that may last for several years. The test results showed that some gases were below detectable or measurable limits at the beginning of testing and remained so throughout the testing period. Only certain gases showed a reduction exceeding the claimed “75% Less Toxic Gases”, while others showed lower reductions. Therefore, the claimed reduction was not demonstrated for most of the gases tested.
The test methodology appeared to rely on particulate matter already present in the air. The report did not specify whether or how particulate matter was intentionally introduced for testing or the locations at which it was measured. The reported reduction in particulate matter was lower than the claimed 75%.
Based on the above assessment, the CCC-R panel concluded that the claims, "90% Oxygen Recovery in 8 Hours", "99.99% Microbe Neutralisation", and "75% Less Toxic Gases", were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. The earlier decision of complaint being Upheld stands on Review.
