Salient Contemplation of Verdict Pronounced by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

18 min readSep 17, 2024

Before we begin, an important announcement is that the Government of India has set up the 23rd Law Commission for legal reforms. (Link)

This post is one among a series of posts. However, the essence of the post doesn’t demand you to know of previous posts yet I’m listing the index for your reference.

Index of Judibility Lawsuit CC-353–2022. (Link)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Collection of Ratul Aich vs HDFC ERGO Proceedings, Orders, and Judgment CC-353–2022. Final proceedings page number 71 onwards. (Searchable PDF Link) (Link)

Index of Health Checkup Claim Repudiation Lawsuit CC-354–2022. (Link)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Collection of Ratul Aich vs HDFC ERGO Proceedings, Orders, and Judgment CC-354–2022. Final proceedings page number 41 onwards. (Searchable PDF Link) (Link)

So it was the duty of the Complainant to prove before this Commission that he actually installed the app in his mobile as per instruction of O.P. To prove the said fact no document has been produced before this Commission.

The court asked me to produce the login and logout session history of the HDFC ERGO app as evidence. This is to determine whether I had logged in to the HDFC ERGO app throughout the year. In the absence of evidence, the verdict was given in favor of the opposite party HDFC ERGO. I am an end consumer. From where can I get the session history of the proprietary app? The session history can be collected only by ordering an investigation from the server of the opposite party HDFC ERGO.

Have you ever wondered, how AI surfing on the internet and beyond is different from web surfing?

We live in the age of Ubiquitous AI. Everything is transformative and personalized. In today’s era, ‘personalized’ web page layouts are generated by AI for an individual, ‘personalized’ videos are generated by AI within web pages, ‘personalized’ images are generated by AI within web pages, ‘personalized’ textual content (tone and vocabulary) is generated by AI within web pages, web search has been long since personalized, digital marketing channels are driven by multilayered AI, ‘AI inside AI inside AI’ (Link), etc. Then there exists, Zero UI, Voice UI, VR, AR, and mid-air holographic displays. Articulatively speaking AI is like fluid dynamics, that is blob and entropy. Some devices give a sense of phantom with supernatural experiences by influencing through frequencies. Some devices kinesthetically communicate experiences through vibrations. Then there exist AI devices that operate in a semi-automated and automated manner. Some neuro devices propagate experience directly in our system. These types of people with embedded technology are called cyborgs.

The point here is human agency.

When human factors resonate with design factors the design accedes from being functional, reliable, accessible, usable, and emotional.

That drew me to an intriguing question,

What legal books would you suggest for human agency in artificial intelligence? (Link)

What kind of evidence will we be expected to present in the court and how will we collect the evidence in today’s tech-savvy society?

Sometimes during the admission hearing phase, I had mentioned a call recording to the court. The court informed me to prepare a transcript and submit it. It is easy to say. In the olden days, a few Subscriber Trunk Dialling (STD) calls were made from the Public Call Office (PCO) for a few minutes. It was possible to prepare a transcript and submit it. It was easy to review those transcripts with a limited number of pages by various parties. Now, long conversations are held routinely with customer care. Even though the transcripts can be prepared by AI, how practical would it be to print and review the transcripts manually? How much will a single consumer spend in preparing and printing a transcript in his personal capacity?

Sometimes courts are asking for color photo printouts. Color photo printouts also cost effort, hard work, time, and money because you will have to visit the photo studio to get it printed. Sending high-resolution photos online is easy and cost-effective too. God save us if tomorrow any court asks for a printout of the video in 30 fps (frames per second).

I am mentioning another such incident as I was fed up with being sent to the Notary Office routinely by the Court, I asked a question on Quora.

How effective is the rule of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that various documents must be submitted only after getting them notarized? I’ve written an answer based on my personal experience and wish you as well contribute. (Link)

In a tech-savvy society, what evidence can we demand from the consumer? And what evidence do we have to collect from the system?

The court will have to rethink this deeply and fundamentally.

Personalization means that you cannot compare my evidence with your evidence either.

That is why you cannot even argue that if it is not visible to me, how can I believe it? Or if it did not happen to me, how can I believe it?

It is due to personalization, some or the other differed parameters would change the outcome every time a use case is repeated.

Well, keeping in mind the security of consumers and the ‘Occupational Safety and Health Administration’ (OSHA) of workers in the industrial areas, law universities will have to focus on evidence collection and utilization of the ubiquitous digital environment around humans, through progressive research.

I’m therefore advocating for the field of studies, ‘Consumer Centric Digital Legal Investigation and UX Frameworks.’

Over the last 3 years, I’ve reported the cases CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022 to the Insurance Ombudsman, the Council of Ombudsman, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Barasat, with no favorable outcome.

The disputed amount for Case CC/353/2022 was approximately 670 INR and the disputed amount for Case CC/354/2022 was 2000 INR. The bare minimum compensation asked for pro-bono-publico Case CC/353/2022 was 10,000 INR and the bare minimum compensation asked for Case CC/354/2022 was 50,000 INR to cover the cost of litigation, printing, travel, and miscellaneous expenses. I’ve been fined 10,000 INR for CC/353/2022 by DCDRC to which 50% needs to be deposited in legal aid and 50% needs to be given to the OP HDFC ERGO. I’ve been fined 5,000 INR for CC/354/2022 by DCDRC to which 50% needs to be deposited in legal aid and 50% needs to be given to the OP HDFC ERGO. I’ve deposited the said amount in full on 9 September 2024. (RW780881172IN)

I’ve contested this case in my personal capacity. My resources are limited and they have been exhausted. All this while, I’ve spent my resources prudently for a pro-bono-publico cause that I believe has a larger objective and impact on tech-savvy society. It is therefore time to stop.

I’ve produced enough material for an academic case study. In the course of 3 years, I could bring the matter to the notice of the Government authorities through these platforms.

I’ve scrutinized the verdict and for once I thought to appeal the case in the State CDRC but then dropped the idea staring at the stack of hardcopies that has piled up over the last 3 years as I escalated the matter from one authority to another. If I had decided to visit the State CDRC, I’d have to print 4 copies of that pile of documents and 4 copies of every document that I’d submit to the court in the course of litigation once again.

Someone has the same concern as he asked a question on Quora. After submitting my case on online consumer forum in edaakhil dot nic dot in, I got an email asking me to submit 2+1 copies in respected consumer forum. If you’ve submitted a complaint before then can you tell me that what and how did you submit it? I’ve written an answer based on my personal experience. (Link)

However, I felt a strong need to clarify a few points in the cases CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022.

CC/353/2022, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. (Link)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Complaint Petition CC-353–2022. (Link)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Collection of Ratul Aich vs HDFC ERGO Proceedings, Orders, and Judgment CC-353–2022. Final proceedings page number 71 onwards. (Searchable PDF Link) (Link)

No deliberate attempt has been made to conceal the information of the Insurance Ombudsman from DCDRC.
One of the four PDFs A22090004397_D22090018914 uploaded for filing through the eDaakhil portal contains the Insurance Ombudsman’s documents in the case CC/353/2022. (Link)
The extracts from the Insurance Ombudsman have been listed clearly in the Annexures submitted with the Evidence (Affidavit in Chief). The document’s heading is ‘Judicial Investigation Friendly Digital Systems, Judibility.’ The paragraph’s heading is ‘Tech Ecosystem Opaqueness’. Best to my remembrance a copy of the Insurance Ombudsman has been submitted with the Evidence (Affidavit in Chief) as well.
Many of the annexures that I’ve submitted in the court seem to have been taken up as petitions whereas they are clearly not addressed to the DCDRC. Either they have been addressed to SCDRC or NCDRC and a copy has been submitted of the same for DCDRC’s reference only.
The OP HDFC ERGO has filed petition after petition for the same cause of merging the two cases that is CC/353/2022 with CC/354/2022, whereas the nature of the two cases and the timeline of the two cases are different from one another. OP also lost the evidence document that I sent to OP 13 months back by registered post. OP was asking me to resubmit the evidence document. This has led to unnecessary delay in the litigation by 2 years whereas the DCDRC has blatantly accused me of delaying the case in their verdict. ‘Moreover, we find that Complainant intentionally suppressed material fact. This case has been going on since last two years and each and every date of hearing Complainant by filing different types of petition participated himself in lengthy hearing and thereby consumed the valuable times of this Commission which demands imposition of exemplary cost against him.’ (Link1) (Link2)
On 2 July 2024, I as the complainant (plaintiff) never asked for another date of hearing to produce the evidence document copy to hand over to the OP as mentioned in the order. I clearly refused to comply with the bench’s request as a copy had already been delivered and served to the OP 13 months back (by registered post RW579628005IN). Such a request has been made by the DCDRC bench earlier on the 6 May 2024 hearing as well. This drove me to file the put-up petition with DCDRC concerning the same matter that was sent on 18 June 2024 (by registered post RW780882337IN, delivered on 20 June 2024). As I refused on 2 July 2024, successively I’ve also requested the bench to hear the put-up petition. Ignoring my humble request the bench kept my put-up petition aside and proceeded. The bench then untied the CC/353/2022 file, took out the evidence documents and annexures, printed it in their office, and gave the copy to the OP HDFC ERGO’s on-floor advocate. It is best to my knowledge this action was carried out in the absence of a formal application from the on-floor advocate of HDFC ERGO requesting a copy of the evidence documents from DCDRC. Specifying Misrepresentation and Falsification on 2 July 2024 Order of CC-353–2022. (Link)
A copy of the bill has been attached in Annexure B with the PDF A22090004397_D22090018914 uploaded for filing through the eDaakhil portal. 29–11–2021 UPI/Apollo Munich H/133320146189/APOLLOGENINS UPI-133341956294 8,370.00(Dr). Apollo Munich has been acquired by HDFC ERGO.
In the course of the 2 years, DCDRC could have asked for any additional documents if required.
It seems an attempt of character assassination by misrepresentation that led to public defamation has been made in the Order published by DCDRC on 19 July 2024. The same was mentioned in the Judgement on 26 Aug 2024 for the case CC-353–2022. Misrepresentation in DCDRC’s Order, Heckled and Humiliated by Court Official. (Link)
The relief amount and a few other details have been misspelled.
The court asked me to produce the login and logout session history of the HDFC ERGO app as evidence. This is to determine whether I had logged in to the HDFC ERGO app throughout the year. In the absence of evidence, the verdict was given in favor of the opposite party HDFC ERGO. I am an end consumer. From where can I get the session history of the proprietary app? The session history can be collected only by ordering an investigation from the server of the opposite party HDFC ERGO.
I have assertively advocated for a thorough investigation of the matter in hand to establish legitimacy, alongside highlighting the pitfalls. You should check my reply to the Brief Note of Argument put forward by OP HDFC ERGO. (Link)
Unnecessarily the content of CC/354/2022 has been pushed in the verdict of CC/353/2022 and vice-versa to make it look and feel complicated and incomprehensible. Also, the 15-day lookup period of the health insurance policy is redundant in this case because the policy inception was in Nov 2019 and the incident happened in Nov 2021.
An important note. The orders were not uploaded online to the Confonet since 6 May 2024. I’ve filed multiple concerns and complaints in this regard. I only noticed the 19 July 2024 order and the misrepresented statements on the 30th of July 2024 when all the pending orders were uploaded with the final judgment. Orders and Proceedings Weren’t Appearing on Confonet Post 6 May 2024. (Link)
I hired Online Legal India as my legal consultant to file the case OLI70066645519543 with District CDRC. I’ve provided all the details and documents to OLI at the beginning. I proceeded as per their consultation. They never told me that I couldn’t file a fresh case in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the verdict of the Insurance Ombudsman.
After the verdict was announced Online Legal India withdrew from the case. They retracted from an appeal in the State CDRC stating ‘Regarding your email, we would like to inform you that, we can’t provide the service to you anymore as there has been a cost for contempt of court in two of your cases as he has said something disrespectful to the court.’ I’ll include the full email below.

CC/354/2022, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. (Link)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Complaint Petition CC-354–2022. (Link)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Collection of Ratul Aich vs HDFC ERGO Proceedings, Orders, and Judgment CC-354–2022. Final proceedings page number 41 onwards. (Searchable PDF Link) (Link)

District CDRC stated in their proceedings, final order, and judgment that “If he was not satisfied with the said Award of Hon’ble Ombudsmen then he has to choose the appropriate forum against the Award of Hon’ble Ombudsmen.
But without doing so he simply came before this Commission alleging the same allegation against the O.P and suppressed the aforesaid Award of Hon’ble Ombudsmen but as per decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C nobody cannot proceed under two legal authorities under two different acts for same relief.”
No deliberate attempt has been made to conceal the information of the Insurance Ombudsman from DCDRC.
One of the four PDFs A22080005770_D22080025275 uploaded for filing through the eDaakhil portal contains the Insurance Ombudsman’s documents in the case CC/354/2022. (Link)
A copy of the Insurance Ombudsman has been submitted with the Evidence (Affidavit in Chief) as well.
I hired Online Legal India as my legal consultant to file the case OLI62163532705400 with District CDRC. I’ve provided all the details and documents to OLI at the beginning. I proceeded as per their consultation. They never told me that I couldn’t file a fresh case in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the verdict of the Insurance Ombudsman.
After the verdict was announced Online Legal India withdrew from the case. They retracted from an appeal in the State CDRC stating ‘Regarding your email, we would like to inform you that, we can’t provide the service to you anymore as there has been a cost for contempt of court in two of your cases as he has said something disrespectful to the court.’ I’ll include the full email below.
The OP has filed petition after petition for the same cause of merging the two cases that is CC/353/2022 with CC/354/2022, whereas the nature of the two cases and the timeline of the two cases are different from one another. This has led to unnecessary delay in the litigation by 2 years whereas the DCDRC has blatantly accused me of delaying the case in their verdict. ‘Moreover, we find that Complainant intentionally suppressed material fact. This case has been going on for last two years and each & every date of hearing valuable time of this Commission has been consumed.’ (Link1) (Link2) (Link3) (Link4)
In the course of the 2 years, DCDRC could have asked for any additional documents if required. I’ve routinely witnessed DCDRC demanding additional documents from litigants while waiting for my turn. Why didn’t they ask me to produce additional documents? All the Optima Restore health insurance policy transactions were made online with OP HDFC ERGO. (Link)
Unnecessarily the content of CC/353/2022 has been pushed in the verdict of CC/354/2022 and vice-versa to make it look and feel complicated and incomprehensible. Also, the 15-day lookup period of the health insurance policy is redundant in this case because the policy inception was in Nov 2019, the misselling promise was made in Nov 2020 and the incident happened in Nov 2021.
The open and shut case (CC/354/2022) proceedings were taking so long in the District CDRC that I grew skeptical and citing delay in justice, I was forced to make a complaint against discrimination. The RTI NCDRC/R/E/24/00040 revealed that generally open-and-shut cases are disposed of in 3 months. (Link)
The HDFC ERGO on-floor advocate informed us on 6 May 2024 that he couldn’t find the Brief Note of Argument (BNA) document for the case CC/354/2022. The BNA document was sent to HDFC ERGO head office by registered post (RW642070984IN) 10 months back on 24 June 2023 due to the absence of the on-floor advocate. Instead of asking the Advocate of OP HDFC ERGO to collect the certified document copy by filing an application, the District CDRC asked me to produce the documents and give a 2nd copy to the on-floor advocate. This felt like harassment and deliberately troubling to the plaintiff. Complaint to DCDRC for Asking Resubmission of Documents CC-354–2022. (Link)
An important note. The orders were not uploaded online to the Confonet since 6 May 2024. I’ve filed multiple concerns and complaints in this regard. I only noticed the 19 July 2024 order and the misrepresented statements on the 30th of July 2024 when all the pending orders were uploaded with the final judgment. Orders and Proceedings Weren’t Appearing on Confonet Post 6 May 2024. (Link)
I hired Online Legal India as my legal consultant to file the case OLI62163532705400 with District CDRC.
After the verdict was announced Online Legal India withdrew from the case. They retracted from an appeal in the State CDRC stating ‘Regarding your email, we would like to inform you that, we can’t provide the service to you anymore as there has been a cost for contempt of court in two of your cases as he has said something disrespectful to the court.’ I’ll include the full email below.

The email from Online Legal India withdrew from the case after the verdict had been announced.

from: Online Legal India <support@onlinelegalindia.zohodesk.in>
reply-to: support@onlinelegalindia.zohodesk.in
to: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
cc: support@onlinelegalindia.zohodesk.in
date: Aug 24, 2024, 10:33 AM
subject: Re:[## 478049 ##] Urgent Require Help to Appeal CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022 in State CDRC by 24 August 2024
mailed-by: onlinelegalindia.zohodesk.in

Dear Client,
Greetings from Online Legal India!
Apologies for the inconvenience caused to you!
Regarding your email, we would like to inform you that, we can’t provide the service to you anymore as there has been a cost for contempt of court in two of your cases as he has said something disrespectful to the court.
If you need any further assistance,feel free to contact us at our Chat support,Customer Support Desk: 08069029400 and also can reply to this email.
We would be happy to assist you with the best of our service.
OLI reference number: OLI62163532705400 / OLI70066645519543

Thanks & Regards,
Sudip Bachar
Online Legal India
Customer Care: 08069029400
Email: info@onlinelegalindia.com
Visit: www.onlinelegalindia.com

How effective are the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at protecting consumers and delivering justice?

I found the Insurance Ombudsman’s judgment inappropriate so I visited the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, India, 700126. I filed the case CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022. District CDRC dragged the case for two long years. The opposite party filed irrelevant petitions after petition in an attempt to exhaust me.

I didn’t give up and filed an RTI NCDRC-R-E-24–00040 to find out the time it would take to dispose of the case.

I made a complaint to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in response to the RTI NCDRC-R-E-24–00040 and stated the following.

‘Nowadays, when a fintech agent calls to explain a 15-year pension plan, I often ponder, 15 years from now, had the company managing my pension plan deliberately brewed a dispute in the same way as it happened with me in HDFC ERGO Health Insurance and refused to pay the money despite having proofs, then in the old age, my health will likely deteriorate visiting the consumer court routinely on an average for three years, successively bearing the advocate’s expenses all this while! This is how the functioning of the consumer court affects consumer sentiment.’

The consumer court took note and sped up the process, but I think out of a grudge, they disposed of the case by penalizing me deliberately finding minuscule technicality faults. The Judges framed me right on the court premises by accusing me of portraying unpredictable behavior in the order copy. Why didn’t they point it out verbally on the floor of the court? Instead, they directly mentioned it in the 19 July 2024 order copy of case CC/353/2022 which wasn’t published online until 11 days later on 30 July 2024, when the matter came to my cognizance. ‘We failed to understand as to how he took the photograph of the Gate of the Commission. When this question was raised he became annoyed and expressed his angry movement.’

This incident on the court’s floor during the ongoing hearing is an outright violation of personal liberty and human rights.

It looked like I was a General of the Army or Chief of the Army Staff under trial for war crimes by the enemy nation’s ally and my presence is a mere statutory obligation like the Netflix Series Tokyo Trial. They ignored all my arguments, and they pronounced the same judgment they would have anyway given.

In my opinion, there is no difference between the time taken and the procedure followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Civil Court.

You need to hire an advocate to find favorable justice. The challenges you face as a pro-se-litigant in Civil Court are the same challenges you face as a pro-se-litigant in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Unlike, district courts, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is located in an aloof location very far from the court premises. You are expected to notarize and submit the documents in District CDRC. The notary office is located in court premises but in the case of District CDRC, you need to visit the nearest court, find the notary office, get the documents notarized, and return to the District CDRC to submit the documents.

Due to my poor personal experiences, sometimes I feel that what we see in the daily news about the consumer court’s verdict is just a public relations (PR) stunt to keep up the public morale. It could be possible that once in a while, the consumer court will reimburse a selected few, only to advertise its potential. Encouraged by the news, as the plaintiffs approach a consumer court, the cases would be delayed deliberately, in lieu of it, the advocate would charge the fee for every appearance, and ultimately the case would be dismissed based on some or the other legal technicality.

I think we need a lot more routine statistics on the State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. One of them is, which social stratification (caste, class, race, community) in demography is approaching District CDRC and which isn’t? What is the frequency of lawsuits and settlements filed by each stratification? How generously has the settlements been made to a certain stratification? In the age of AI, Semantic Researchers may find great potential for at-scale research in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The students of Mass Communication and Journalism can easily collect various types of data from the Lok Adalat Department of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) regularly.

A recent litigation proceeding has cleared the path for gathering historical lawsuit data by filing the Right to Information Act (RTI).

CPIO v. A.K. Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5708, decided on 26–07–2024. Interpretation of Consumer Protection Regulations must align with the overarching goal of the RTI Act. Delhi HC directs CPIO to reassess third-party requests to access copies of a consumer case. The decision to disclose or withhold information should be made judiciously, considering the stipulations of Section 8 of the RTI Act. This approach ensures that the provisions of the RTI Act are not compromised, while also respecting the confidentiality required in judicial proceedings. The News was published on 24 August 2024. (Link)

Concluding with a speculation. The next World War isn’t likely to be a nuclear war, the next World War could be factoring through nano-technology and propagation technologies. It will be borderless and ubiquitos.

This is a combined post for CC/353/2022 and CC/354/2022.

Diversion for CC/353/2022.

First in the series is Judicial Investigation Friendly Digital Systems, Judibility. (Link)

Previous in the series is a Brief Note of Argument by Complainant CC-353–2022. (Link)

Next in the series is Judicial Extortion Suspected. (Link)

Diversion for CC/354/2022.

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

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