Prosecution Of Fake Health Product Advertisements
Legal Framework
Prosecution of false or misleading health product advertisements is primarily governed under:
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (India) – prohibits advertising of drugs claiming to cure certain diseases or health conditions without approval.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(1)(r) and Section 2(1)(x) cover unfair trade practices, false advertising, and misleading claims.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 420 (cheating), 272 (adulteration), 274 (sale of adulterated drugs) may apply if the advertisement misleads consumers.
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSAI) – regulates claims for nutraceuticals, supplements, and fortified foods.
Courts have consistently held that advertisements that mislead consumers about health benefits or curative powers can attract criminal and civil liability.
Case Precedents
1. State of Maharashtra vs. Dabur India Ltd. (2008)
Facts:
Dabur faced allegations for advertising one of its health supplements claiming to cure diabetes, which was unverified and misleading.
Charges:
Violation of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act
Unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act
Judgment / Outcome:
Bombay High Court upheld fines and directed withdrawal of the advertisement.
Court emphasized that claims of curing diseases require scientific evidence and regulatory approval.
Significance:
Sets a precedent that advertisements must be backed by credible clinical evidence.
Corporates cannot rely on testimonials alone to make health claims.
2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2010)
Facts:
HUL was accused of misleading advertisements for a nutritional supplement claiming immunity benefits beyond approved standards.
Charges:
Section 420 IPC (cheating by misleading consumers)
Violation of FSSAI and Drugs Act provisions
Judgment / Outcome:
Court ruled that claims suggesting medical or preventive effects without scientific basis were illegal.
Ordered immediate withdrawal and corrective advertising.
Significance:
Courts differentiate between general health claims (allowed) and therapeutic claims (regulated).
3. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. vs. State of Uttarakhand (2017)
Facts:
Patanjali products advertised cures for diabetes and heart conditions without clinical trials or regulatory approval.
Charges:
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019
Judgment / Outcome:
Uttarakhand High Court directed that all advertisements making unverified health claims must be withdrawn immediately.
Fined the company and ordered corrective statements in newspapers.
Significance:
Courts insist on regulatory compliance before making health claims.
Reinforces accountability of manufacturers for misleading consumers.
4. Novartis Pharma India Ltd. Case (2012)
Facts:
Novartis advertised a pharmaceutical product claiming higher efficacy than supported by clinical trials.
Charges:
False claims under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act
Cheating under IPC 420
Judgment / Outcome:
Delhi High Court held that exaggerating efficacy constitutes criminal and civil liability.
Directed advertisement withdrawal and imposed penalties.
Significance:
Establishes that even minor exaggeration in health benefits may attract legal action.
Courts protect public interest over corporate interests in health advertising.
5. Zandu Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Maharashtra (2015)
Facts:
Zandu advertised a herbal tonic claiming to cure chronic illnesses without scientific validation.
Charges:
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act
Consumer Protection Act violation
Judgment / Outcome:
Maharashtra Court held the advertisement misleading and fined the company.
Ordered public notice in media to correct misleading impressions.
Significance:
Courts emphasize consumer protection and truth in advertising.
Demonstrates regulatory enforcement over traditional/herbal medicine claims.
6. Himalaya Drug Company Case (Kerala, 2016)
Facts:
Himalaya was accused of advertising a product claiming to treat skin diseases without clinical trials or FSSAI approval.
Charges:
Violation of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act
Consumer Protection Act violation
Judgment / Outcome:
Court held that misleading health claims on herbal products fall under the same regulatory scrutiny as allopathic medicines.
Ordered advertisement withdrawal and public correction.
Significance:
Confirms that Ayurvedic and herbal products are equally accountable for false health claims.
Reinforces need for scientific validation before promotion.
7. Patanjali COVID-19 Immunity Product Case (2020)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Patanjali product was advertised claiming to prevent or cure COVID-19.
Charges:
Violation of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act
IPC 420 (cheating) for misleading health claims
Judgment / Outcome:
Courts and government authorities directed immediate withdrawal.
Public warning issued against misleading advertisements during a health crisis.
Significance:
Highlights heightened scrutiny during public health emergencies.
Courts prioritize public health over marketing freedoms.
Key Principles Emerging from These Cases
Scientific Evidence is Mandatory: Health claims in advertisements must be supported by clinical studies or government approval.
Herbal and Natural Products are Regulated: Ayurvedic and herbal products are held to the same standards as pharmaceutical drugs.
Consumer Protection: Misleading health claims constitute unfair trade practices and can lead to civil and criminal liability.
Corrective Measures Required: Courts often require withdrawal, fines, and publication of corrective statements.
Public Health Priority: During epidemics or widespread health concerns, misleading advertisements are treated with greater severity.
Corporate Liability: Both the company and marketing executives may be held responsible for false claims.
RELATED Blog
comments