Pranav B Prem

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), has affirmed the District Commission’s finding that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries indulged in unfair trade practice by failing to declare the results of a gold/silver coin contest linked to the sale of Revital capsules. The State Commission held that the company’s deliberate non-disclosure kept the consumer in the dark for years, causing mental agony, hardship, and unnecessary harassment, thereby attracting liability under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Also Read: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Atulaya Healthcare Liable for Negligently Uploading Wrong Covid-19 Positive Report on ICMR Portal

The dispute originated when the complainant was drawn by an advertisement issued by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., which promised customers the chance to win a 25-gram gold or silver coin upon purchasing a pack of Revital capsules. The complainant purchased a capsule pack for ₹100 from a medical store, Nidhi Medicose, and found inside the package a coupon bearing a unique code, as advertised. In accordance with the instructions, he sent the code via SMS along with the required slogan and was assured that he stood a chance to win a coin.

When the complainant later approached the seller for the prize, the medical shop informed him that it bore no responsibility for the scheme, since the promotional contest was entirely managed by Sun Pharma. Upon further inquiry, the complainant was told that he had not won any coin. Unsatisfied with the opaque manner in which the contest was conducted, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging misrepresentation and cheating by both the shop and the manufacturer.

Before the District Commission, Opposite Party No. 1 (the medical store) defended itself by asserting that its role was limited to selling the product and that prize distribution or verification of contest entries fell solely within the manufacturer’s domain. Opposite Party No. 2, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., failed to appear despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte.

Also Read: Chandigarh Consumer Commission: Samsung Liable For Defective LED TV; Directed To Refund ₹79,980 With Interest And Pay ₹10,000 Compensation

The District Commission found that while the complainant could not prove he was a winner, Sun Pharma had indisputably failed to disclose the results of the scheme, failed to publish any announcement of winners, and failed to clarify the terms of the draw. This non-disclosure, the Commission held, amounted to an unfair trade practice, as it misled consumers into believing that their participation would be transparently considered. The complaint was dismissed against the medical shop but allowed against Sun Pharma, which was directed to pay ₹40,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

Sun Pharma challenged the order before the State Commission, arguing that the District Commission had sent notice to the wrong address and that the scheme was not a sales promotion but a commemorative reward initiative to mark Revital H’s 25th anniversary. It also contended that prizes had been distributed fairly, though no documentary evidence was produced in support.

The State Commission rejected these arguments, observing that the appellant had produced no material to demonstrate that winners were ever declared or that results were ever published. The failure to make such disclosure, the Commission held, squarely fell within the definition of “unfair trade practice,” as it deprived the complainant of essential information and caused avoidable suffering. The Commission noted that the manufacturer’s failure to participate in the District Commission proceedings or to rectify its non-disclosure further strengthened the consumer’s grievance.

Also Read: Kerala Consumer Commission Slams Tour Operator For Withholding Refund; Orders ₹1.25 Lakh Payout To College Student After Cancelled Trip

Upholding the District Commission’s order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the direction requiring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. to pay ₹40,000 as compensation along with ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

Cause Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs Zamiruddin & Anr.

Case No: First Appeal/A/19/2022

Coram: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Bimla Kumari (Member)