Piramal Pharma Limited - Piramal

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: General Public

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and also forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim 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 claim on the product packaging, or alternately to substantiate the claim with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and submitted their response. The advertiser in their response stated that the complaint arises from a cross comparison of product prices across two different tax timelines following the implementation of GST 2.0, which led to a revision of MRPs. It has mistakenly compared a Pre-GST 2.0 manufactured 300 g pack with a Post-GST 2.0 price of the 110 g pack. The claim of "Savings of Rs. 59/-*" is accurate under both the old and new pricing structures. The font size, type, and background contrast used on the physical label ensure clear legibility under normal retail and household conditions. In support of their response, the advertiser provided current label of Naturolax-A (300 g) and (110 g). The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the product packaging, considered the complaint and the advertiser’s response. The CCC noted the advertiser’s clarification that the comparison was made with the 110 g jar pack and that the difference in calculation arose due to the use of pre-GST and post-GST pricing. The advertiser had demonstrated savings under both pricing structures, with savings of Rs.61.90 under the pre-GST pricing and Rs.59.45 under the post-GST pricing. The advertiser explained that, under the earlier pricing structure, the 110 g jar pack was priced at Rs. 213 and the 300 g pack at Rs. 519, resulting in consumer savings of Rs. 61.90. Following the GST 2.0 price revision, the MRP of the 110 g jar pack was revised to Rs. 200, while the MRP of the 300 g pack was revised to Rs. 486, resulting in consumer savings of Rs. 59.45. Accordingly, the advertiser stated that the packaging claim of "Savings of Rs. 59/-*" reflected the revised post-GST pricing. The claim was also qualified by the disclaimer “as compared to MRP of Naturolax-A 110 g jar pack”. The CCC further observed that value saver pack claims are commonly used for larger pack sizes, wherein the savings are communicated based on a comparison with smaller pack sizes. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Value Saver Pack Savings of Rs. 59/-*”, is not misleading, and is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. With respect to the objection regarding the disclaimer being illegible, the CCC reviewed the disclaimer and noted that it was clearly visible and legible. The disclaimer was placed directly below the main claim, enabling consumers to read the claim along with the qualifying condition. The CCC was therefore of the view that the disclaimer adequately qualified the savings claim. The disclaimer, “*As compared to MRP of Naturolax-A 110 g jar pack”, is not in contravention of ASCI Guidelines For Disclaimers Made In Supporting, Limiting Or Explaining Claims Made In Advertisement. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.