Objection to Petition under the provision of Consumer Protection Act praying for rejection of present complaint on the grounds mentioned below, CC-354–2022

I was informed on 12 July 2024 by the Hon’ble President DCDRC Barasat, that this petition has been disposed off. Yet I’d like to keep a copy of my reply in the file. Masscom educational case study purpose.

DCDRC Barasat North 24 Parganas Copy sent by registry post RW780882399IN on 13 July 2024 and received on 19 July 2024.
HDFC ERGO Copy sent by registry post RW780882270IN on 13 July 2024 and received on 18 July 2024.

Hon’ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas, WB

CC/354/2022

Ratul Aich
Petitioner/Complainant/Appellant

v/s

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd
OP 2

Date 12/07/2024.

Objection and Response to OP HDFC ERGO 10 July 2024 Petition under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act praying for rejection of the present complaint on the grounds mentioned below.

Brief of Case CC/354/2022 QR Code. https://rat9.medium.com/how-effective-is-complaining-to-the-insurance-ombudsman-and-the-insurance-regulatory-and-ba6f0f1f6b53

1. Written in colloquial language by pro se litigant plaintiff Ratul Aich.
2. There is no similarity between case CC/354/2022 and case CC/353/2022.
3. There is a strong relationship between the following petitions and responses.
   a) OP has attempted to make a combined response of CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022 in the document ‘WRITTEN VERSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPONENTS’ submitted in CC/353/2022 (https://rat9.medium.com/hdfc-ergo-responded-on-17-jan-2023-10fe815d95e). The plaintiff in his response (https://rat9.medium.com/replied-hdfc-ergo-on-1-march-2023-8205a70d08c) has clearly objected and asked the OP to list two separate replies for cases CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022. The response by the plaintiff is in relation to this current petition.
   b) Two separate similar petitions have already been filed by OP HDFC ERGO in case CC/353/2022 (https://rat9.medium.com/petition-under-order-vii-rule-xi-d-cpc-r-w-s-151-de9934c61c50) and CC/354/2022 (https://rat9.medium.com/petition-under-order-vii-rule-xi-d-cpc-r-w-s-151-a50e534e51bf) with the heading ‘PETITION UNDER ORDER VII RULE XI (D) CPC R/W S.151 CPC PRAYING FOR REJECTION OF PRESENT COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED BELOW.’ Please refer to the response to the OP by the plaintiff in both the petitions that are in relation to this successive petition. Also, check the DCDRC order in this regards.
4. With no change in content, this petition has been filed except for moving from the CPC’s purview to the Consumer Protection Act’s purview.
5. For your kind information, HDFC ERGO took over Apollo Munich. The year 2019 month November Apollo Munich inception policy 110103/11119/AA01265980, the year 2020 HDFC ERGO internal seamless transition policy 2805203553540501, and the year 2021 HDFC ERGO policy 2805203553540502 continued.
6. I have to submit 2 unique bills of different years for CC/354/2022 and case CC/353/2022.
7. The policy number of both is also different.
8. The nature of the complaint of both is also different. CC/354/2022 is a typical case of misselling by false promise on email. CC/353/2022 is a case related to Technology, User Experience (UX), Digital Data Management, and Discounts.
9. For case CC/354/2022, I’ve to submit the year 2020 bill copy to the court, because in the year 2020, I downgraded the policy of Rs 10 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The renewed policy number for the year 2020 is 2805203553540501.
10. For case CC/353/2022, I’ve to submit the year 2021 bill copy to the court, because I was not given a discount in the year 2021. The renewed policy number for the year 2021 is 2805203553540502.
11. Per the email confirmation the renewal of inception policy number 110103/11119/AA01265980 to the renewed policy number 2805203553540501, 2000 INR must be reimbursed for a health checkup, which has been repudiated.
12. At the time of the renewed policy 2805203553540502, a maximum (up to) of 8% Discount of 8370 INR (policy premium), approximately ~669 INR discount, has been denied.
13. OP petition point 2 (a) is incorrect. OP mentioned, “Relief is sought towards health check-up expenses of Rs. 2000 at the end of 2 continuous years” which is an incorrect statement. Relief is sought towards health check-up expenses of Rs 2000 at the end of 1 continuous year. The policy inception date was the year 2019, and health checkup reimbursement was asked when policy 2805203553540501 was in continuation.
14. I am a student of media and journalism and a professional of User Experience. I would like to explain by an analogy. When you are flying high in an airplane and look at the earth, it seems as if everything has become flat and everything is the same. Similarly, it is possible that OP HDFC ERGO is looking at both these cases philosophically from a very high altitude, which is why both cases seem the same to them. OP’s overwhelming optimism about the idea of ​​equality can be put to use to promote friendship and harmony between Kukis and Meiteis in Manipur, but in the context of this case, it is of no use.
15. The distinctness of these two cases from one another has also surfaced by the plaintiff Ratul Aich in ‘CC/353/2022 OP HDFC ERGO Response Received on 17 Jan 2023 Objected and Replied by Complainant Ratul Aich’. OP has attempted to make a combined response of CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022 in the document ‘WRITTEN VERSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPONENTS’.
16. At this point, it is important to question the vested motives of the OP HDFC ERGO and the benefit it is willing to reap by combining the cases CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022. Are they in any way trying to gain from the complexities of CC/353/2022 which is a technology-related case, to influence an open and shut misselling case suffice with hard evidence (HDFC ERGO declaration by email) in case CC/354/2022.
17. At this point, an obvious question arises with regard to the bench’s intention pertaining to the response received from RTI NCDRC/R/E/24/00040 and successive complaints made to SCDRC and NCDRC to delay an open and shut case CC/354/2022 beyond 3 months (as stated in RTI response).
18. Why is the President of DCDRC & Bench postponing the case CC/354/2022 and willing to settle it with CC/353/2022 on the same day? Does the bench get any vested interest or political instructions from higher-ups?
19. A complaint has been made that the bench has been likely compromised to SCDRC and a copy of the same has been submitted to the DCDRC Bench on 10 July hearing.
20. I’m mentioning all these things in the notarized petition response because the way (as it seems) the bench is operating is in the worst interest of the layman pro se litigant plaintiff which is suspicious and grieved and will discourage the public from bringing to the kind notice (reporting) of the Government of India by the quasi-judicial system CDRC about the discrepancies in the technologically advanced consumer segment capable to rapidly affect masses at scale that is living in tech-savvy society.
21. CDRC isn’t only a forum, commission, or court but it is also a vigilance system that encourages the public to stay vigilant by peer-to-peer and neighborhood watch programs on companies capable of rapid at-scale discrepancies in the era of technology advancement. The erosion of a peer-to-peer vigilance system amplifies the probability of fatalities deteriorating safety barricades in society.
22. Opinion. Given the sheer scale of rapid destruction the technology consumer products and services are capable of in a tech-savvy society, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is a procedural nightmare replicated from civil and criminal courts.
23. Therefore, I’d request DCDRC to move Case CC/354/2022 to SCDRC given the humungous delays, the amplitude of discrepancy in the case so far, and the earlier complaint submitted to the President for suspected discrimination against the plaintiff Ratul Aich, no action has been taken/informed. The trust on the bench has been breached.
    a) From: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
    To: confo-pn-wb@nic.in, ncdrc@nic.in, dr.ncdrc@gov.in, wb-sforum@nic.in, confo-rh-wb@gov.in
    Date: Nov 10, 2023, 7:10 PM
    Subject: Suspected Discrimination with Plaintiff and undue favor to HDFC ERGO by Delay in Justice of CC/354/2022 CDRC Barasat
24. It is also important to note that the plaintiff is staying in District North 24 Parganas, WB, and therefore has to approach the same DCDRC in the future for other cases as well as for the case CC/353/2022. Therefore the plaintiff is requesting and demanding DCDRC, SCDRC, NCDRC, Bar Council, and Competent Authority to scrutinize the matter as such delays and discrepancies discourage the public from moving to the CDRC for timely justice and invariably encourage the companies for at-scale exploitation by breeding deliberate discrepancies in their product and services.

Date 12/07/2024
Name Ratul Aich

Brief of Case CC/353/2022. https://rat9.medium.com/judicial-investigation-friendly-digital-systems-judibility-b121000a2280

Judgement for Order date declared by DCDRC Barasat, that is 26/07/2024, therefore the significance of some of the points diminished.

First in the series is, How effective is complaining to the Insurance Ombudsman and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)? (Link)

The previous in the series is the Additional Annexure of Petition under the provision of Consumer Protection Act praying for rejection of present complaint on the grounds mentioned below, CC-354–2022. (Link)

Next in the series is the Salient Contemplation of Verdict Pronounced by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (Link)