Read the passage carefully and answer the questions.
Ritika, a school teacher in Pune, came across an advertisement on social media promoting a new health supplement that claimed to help with weight loss in just a few weeks. The ad featured attractive before-and-after images, along with testimonials from satisfied users, and stated that the product was "clinically tested" and "100% natural." Intrigued by the promising results, Ritika purchased the supplement for ₹1,500, believing it would help her with her weight loss goals.
After using the supplement for two weeks, Ritika noticed no change in her weight, and she began feeling some stomach discomfort. Concerned, she contacted the company's customer service for advice, only to receive vague responses. When Ritika did further research, she found out that the supplement had not undergone any clinical testing, and the ingredients listed on the label were not as advertised. Shocked by this misleading information, Ritika decided to file a complaint with the Consumer Forum.
She highlighted that the product's advertisement was misleading and violated her consumer rights. After hearing her complaint, the Consumer Court ruled in her favor, ordering the company to refund her money and pay a penalty for the misleading advertisement.
What did the Consumer Court order the company to do?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → Refund the money and pay a penalty
Option (1) Replace the supplement with another product — Incorrect. Replacing a defective product is one of the reliefs in the Act. But the passage does not say the court ordered this.
Option (2) Refund the money and pay a penalty — Correct. The passage says the court ordered the company “to refund her money and pay a penalty for the misleading advertisement”. Both are reliefs under the Act: a Commission can order the seller to refund the price paid for the product, and to pay punitive damages. Punitive damages are money paid as a punishment.
Option (3) Improve the product quality — Incorrect. The passage does not mention any such order.
Option (4) Apologize without compensation — Incorrect. Ritika got her money back, and the company had to pay a penalty. So this is wrong.
NCERT (2026-27 Edition): “Relief Available Where District or State or National Commission is satisfied about defect in goods, or deficiency in services on any unfair trade practice or claim for compensation under product liability, issues an order:” “(ii) To replace the defective product with a new one, free from any defect.” “(iii) To refund the price paid for the product, or the charges paid for the service.” “(v) To pay punitive damages in appropriate circumstances.” |