Consumer Court grants Rs 40,000 compensation to pleader misled to be winner of gold coin of Revital contest

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) of South District, New Delhi, has instructed drug producer Sun Pharmaceuticals to pay back a consumer for misleading him into believing that he has won a 25-gram gold coin on a purchase of a packet of Revital Capsule, leading to mental stress.

The DCDRC Bench led by president AK Kuhar and members Rashmi Bansal and Dr Rajender Dhar instructed SUN Pharma to compensate Rs 40,000 to one Zamiruddin for causing him mental stress and distress, also Rs 5,000 as the case charges since 2016.

The Commission stated that the respondents produced a scheme to attract the buyers but failed to inform that a draw would be placed to gain the gold coin.

The Commission stated, "An illiterate and gullible consumer would easily get carried away by such a catchy slogan on the packet. Moreover, even after closure of the scheme the result has never been declared or made public." It's an unfair trade practice and also a violation of Section 2(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Also read: Govt bans direct selling entities from pyramid schemes and promoting money circulation schemes

The order further adds, "The opening of the economy and global market with the removal of restrictions on international trade has led to a phenomenal increase of competition among the traders and manufacturers of consumer goods. In some ways, it has benefited the consumer in the sense of improvement in the quality of service in goods but at the same time it has led to the adoption of many unfair trade practices to promote the sale of commodities which affects the interest of consumers adversely."

The Commission was examining the case where the drug manufacturer SUN, producer of Revital Capsules, a daily health supplement, misled the complainant through the advertisement printed on the supplement package.

Following the advertisement, the buyer thought he won a gold coin on the purchase by gaining a coupon and following the instructions on it. Post following the instructions, the buyer was assured of winning a gold coin, that's where the issue arose.

The buyer reached the drug store from where he bought the product seeking more information regarding the scheme. The owner informed them they have nothing to do with the scheme, however, he enquired about the manufacturers and the buyer's winning status. The shop informed the buyer he had not won any coin in the "Revital Silver Jubilee contest" through email.

The buyer then sued the drug shop and the manufacturers frauded and sold him the product by misrepresentation. He sought guidance against the manufacturer to hand him a gold coin, compensation for the mental stress/harassment endured, and overall expense on the case.

Also read: Apple puts supplier Foxconn's India plant on notice; will it affect manufacturing of iPhones?

The drug shop in defense claimed that the draw isn't their duty, they are simply a pharma shop. However, it admitted that the information as to the winner was not published anywhere and the shop was not aware of the winners of the scheme.

On the other hand, the manufacturer chose a cold-shoulder attitude despite warnings. Observing the state, the way manufacturers dealt with their liability, the commission stated, "Deceiving to the general public is common by the companies by launching lucrative schemes and attracting customers, which is utterly in violation of the spirit of Consumer Protection Act dealing with unfair trade practice."

The Commission overruled the plea seeking the gold coin by the pleader
as he was unable to prove himself as a winner under the scheme. But, the Commission agreed that due to non-disclosure of the result, the complainant was on hold for years causing him distress, suffering, pain, and mental stress.

The Court gave a breather to the drug shop stating that the owner of the shop was not a part of the agreement and had fulfilled all his duty from doing an inquiry from the manufacturers to informing the pleader of the response.

The pleader was granted compensation for the mental suffering and expense during the case. The Court ordered that SUN Pharma should compensate the customer within 45 days, if failed the amount would yield an interest of 6 per cent per annum.