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

The Delhi High Court has imposed a token cost of ₹1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited after the insurer sought ₹5 crore in damages from social media influencer Vishal Rattewal over allegedly disparaging posts. The court held that the dispute did not involve trademark infringement and was not maintainable before its Intellectual Property Division, Bar and Bench reported.The case centres on allegations that Rattewal’s online content damaged the insurer’s reputation.

Niva Bupa sought the removal of the posts, an apology and compensation, arguing that its registered trademarks had been used alongside allegations of fraud, dishonesty, deception and unfair trade practices.Who is Vishal Rattewal?Vishal Rattewal is a CA and a content creator active on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X. Niva Bupa described him as a creator with a substantial following in its submissions before the court.The insurer alleged that Rattewal prominently used its name, logo, registered trademarks and other brand identifiers in his publications, including titles, thumbnails, captions and visual presentations.Rattewal also published a post on his Instagram account.What is the Niva Bupa dispute about?The dispute originated from 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 9 October 2024, the commission ruled in Kumar’s favour and made observations concerning medical insurance companies, The Hindu reported.

Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal subsequently published disparaging content about the insurer in connection with the proceedings. It approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the posts across social media platforms, ₹5 crore in damages, an apology and litigation costs.Why did the Delhi High Court impose a ₹1 cost?In an order dated 21 September, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani held that merely using an insurance company’s name or trademark to identify it in social media posts did not, in the circumstances, amount to trademark infringement.The court noted that Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance business nor connected with it.

It held that the use of Niva Bupa’s name or trademark in the disputed posts did not constitute use “in the course of trade” for the infringement claim.The court held that the suit was not maintainable before its Intellectual Property Division because it did not concern infringement of an intellectual property right.Niva Bupa subsequently sought permission to withdraw the suit and pursue its claims through an ordinary civil action.

The court allowed the request, granting permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of ₹1 as costs to Rattewal.The order addressed the appropriate legal forum; it did not conclusively resolve the underlying allegations. Niva Bupa remains free to pursue a fresh civil suit, subject to the court’s conditions.