Who is Vishal Rattewal? CA and social media influencer sued by Niva Bupa over posts seeking ₹5 million in damages

The Delhi High Court imposed token costs ₹1 to Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited after the insurer sought ₹5 crore compensation from social media influencer Vishal Rattewal for allegedly disparaging posts. The court held that the dispute did not involve trademark infringement and was not maintainable until its Intellectual Property Division, Bar and Bench reported.

The case centers on allegations that Rattewal’s online content damaged the insurer’s reputation. Niva Bupa demanded the removal of the posts, an apology and compensation, alleging that its registered trademarks had been used, along with allegations of fraud, dishonesty, fraud and unfair business practices.

Who is Vishal Rattewal?

Vishal Rattewal is a CA and content creator active on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X. Niva Bupa described him in its court filings as a creator with significant support.

The insurer alleged that Rattewal prominently used its name, logo, registered trademarks and other brand identifiers in its publications, including titles, thumbnails, captions and visual presentations.

Rattewal also posted on his Instagram account.

What is the Niva Bupa controversy about?

The dispute arose out of a consumer complaint filed by Neeraj Kumar against Niva Bupa before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana.

In an order dated October 9, 2024, the commission ruled in Kumar’s favor and made observations regarding health insurance companies, The Hindu reported.

Niva Bupa claimed that Rattewal subsequently published disparaging content about the insurer in connection with the proceedings. She approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the posts across social media platforms, ₹5 million for damages, apology and legal costs.

Why the Delhi High Court imposed a ₹1 price?

In a September 21 order, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani ruled that the mere use of an insurance company’s name or trademark for identification in social media posts does not constitute trademark infringement under the circumstances.

The court noted that Rattewal was not engaged in or connected with the insurance business. He ruled that the use of Niva Bupa’s name or trademark in the disputed posts did not constitute use “in the course of trade” for an infringement claim.

The court ruled that the lawsuit was not maintainable before its intellectual property division because it did not involve infringement of an intellectual property right.

Niva Bupa subsequently applied for permission to withdraw the action and pursue its claims through an ordinary civil action. The court granted the application and granted leave to file a new action on the same ground subject to payment ₹1 as Rattewal’s costs.

The order appealed to the appropriate legal forum; did not conclusively address the underlying allegations. Niva Bupa has the option of starting a new civil lawsuit, subject to court conditions.