Non-Declaration Of “Revital Contest Results” Amounts To Unfair Trade Practice: Delhi State Commission Confirms Against Sun Pharma

Brief facts:

The complainant got attracted by an advertisement/ Gold silver coin scheme issued by Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ('manufacturer'). As per the scheme, on buying a packet of revital capsule, the complainant will find a unique code on the coupon inside the box and by sending the code through SMS as per the directions given therein, the complainant would win a gold / silver coin of 25 grams. The complainant approached the medical shop and purchased the capsule for Rs.100/-. The complainant found a coupon bearing a number which he sent along with a slogan and was then assured that he would win a coin.

The complainant then approached the medical store owner for the coin who told him that he had nothing to do with the scheme since the same was offered by Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On an inquiry being made, the medical shop owner informed the complainant that he has not won any gold coin. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the district commission alleging that the medical shop owner and the manufacturer had cheated him by misrepresenting him.

Submissions of the Opposite Parties :

Opposite Party No. 1 (Nidhi Medicose) submitted that its role was limited to selling the Revital capsule to the complainant and that it had no responsibility for conducting the prize scheme. OP1 stated that the draw of the gold/silver coin contest was solely the manufacturer's obligation, as OP1 was merely running a pharmaceutical shop.

Opposite Party No. 2, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., did not appear before the District Commission despite service of notice and was accordingly proceeded ex parte.

Findings of the District Commission:

The District Commission found that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. had launched a gold/silver coin scheme without clearly disclosing that the prize was subject to a draw and without ever publishing the final results. Although the complainant could not prove that he was the winner, the Commission held that the non-declaration of results constituted an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, causing the complainant mental agony and suffering. The complaint was dismissed against OP1 (the medical shop), but OP2 was held liable and directed to pay ₹40,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the order of the district commission, the manufacturer filed an appeal before the Delhi state commission. As per the manufacturer, the notice was served on the wrong address by the district commission. It was submitted that the scheme was not offered for promoting sales but was made to reward the customers for Revitals H's 25th anniversary and the prizes were distributed fairly.

Observations and Decision of the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that although the complainant could not establish that he was the winner of the gold-coin contest, the District Commission had rightly noted that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. failed to disclose or publish the results of the scheme, which kept the complainant waiting for years and caused him mental agony and suffering.

The Commission further found that the appellant had not produced any material, either before the District Commission or in the appeal, to show that the results of the scheme were ever announced or that any winners were declared, which clearly amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the direction requiring Sun Pharmaceutical to pay ₹40,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, with no order as to costs.

Case Name: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs Zamiruddin & Anr.

Case Number: First Appeal/A/19/2022

Date of Decision: 10.11.2025