Brief Note of Argument by Complainant CC-353-2022

I submitted the Brief Note of Argument of case CC-353-2022 on 24 July 2024.

District:. North 24 Parganas

BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BARASAT

C.C. NO. 353 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ratul Aich

… Complainant

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited

…Opposite Party

Date 24 July 2024.

BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT IN COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. That the complainant is a loyal Customer of the respondent’s organisation.
2. That all the documents that have been submitted during the course of litigation hold extreme importance in shedding light on different aspects of the case CC/353/2022 and must be referred with BNA to understand the matter adequately.
3. That the complainant has an HDFC ERGO Optima Restore 5 lakhs policy for 2020–2021 bearing policy number 2805203553540501 and year 2021–2022 bearing policy number 2805203553540502 the respondent’s concern provides up to 8% stay active discount on renewable for meeting certain walking steps criteria.
4. That the complainant installed the HDFC ERGO application on his mobile and connected it with the Google Fit Application. The said application collects the step count and passes it to the respondent’s concerned application.
5. That the respondent’s concern calculates the data every quarter and gives a maximum discount of 2% on meeting the necessary criteria and a 2% every quarter maximum discount adds up to an 8% maximum discount.
6. That the complainant contacted the respondent’s concern about said discount but no resolution from the respondent’s end.
7. The complainant has one year’s (2020–2021) full data in Google Fit. If Google Fit data is not collected by the respondent’s app on the respondent’s server, or only negligible partial data is collected by the respondent’s app, despite the client following all instructions and general conventions (such as installing, signing in, and connecting) then it is the respondent’s responsibility and the respondents have to find the appropriate solution. It is absolutely not fair to hold the client responsible for this.
8. That the respondent’s concern responsibility is not fulfilled by stating that the server does not have data. It is relevant to reveal due to the above-mentioned fact that the complainant has intimated the respondent regarding the issue but in response, the complainant has not received any constructive reply from the respondent’s end rather has been harassed during the whole procedure.
9. That due to the respondent’s aforementioned malafide act and conduct the complainant got duped of the hard-earned money of the complainant which is hindering the complainant in an erroneous way as the complainant has been facing tremendous noetic agony and due to the same the complainant has not got able to live the life in own accord.
10. The complainant has received no appropriate support from the opposite party’s side to properly resolve this issue which is utterly unprofessional from the opposite party’s end and being deprived of the facilitated support, the complainant intimated the opposite party’s concern on several occasions by way of telephonic and electronic conversations in respect of the said service however, the opposite party concern has acted like flogging of a dead horse in order to provide any of the aforementioned support and due to the opposite party’s aforementioned malafide act and conduct the complainant got duped the hard-earned money of the complainant which is hindering the complainant in an erroneous way as the complainant has been facing the tremendous noetic agony and due to the same the complainant has not got able to live the life in own accord.
11. That the above-mentioned dispute clearly states that there was negligence on the opposite party and the said the opposite party company is running an Unfair Trade Practice in order to dupe the hard-earned money of the complainant wherein the opposite party has intentionally provided the de novo dreadful and deceitful service to the complainant and has not provided the proper and facilitated services towards him which has caused him unnecessary noetic agony and stress.
12. The instant Complaint is filed within the prescribed time period in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
13. That the Complainant tries to solve the issue in every aspect and therefore sends the opposite party a legal notice of the Ld. Advocate to the opposite party on 02/06/2022 and then also the opposite party did not provide any reply to the Complainant.
14. That the opposite party has miserably failed in providing the right, proper, and good service despite the Complainant paying the full amount for policy renewal to the opposite party authority thereby causing a deficiency in service.
15. Proceeding to the Response to OP HDFC ERGO against ‘AFFIDAVIT IN CHIEF UNDER THE ORDER 18, RULE 4 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON BEHALF OF THE OPP. PARTY ABOVENAMED’ submitted by OP HDFC ERGO on 19 July 2024. Written in colloquial language by layman plaintiff.
16. Point 8, point 9, point 10, point 11, and point 12 won’t be addressed in the ‘AFFIDAVIT IN CHIEF UNDER THE ORDER 18, RULE 4 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON BEHALF OF THE OPP. PARTY ABOVENAMED’ because it is related to case CC/354/2022.
17. Responding to point number 14. Complainant Ratul Aich has furnished all the ‘Stay Active Discount’ important emails to the Ombudsman, including the conversations on missing data with the OP HDFC ERGO. Dissatisfied with the Ombudsman’s verdict (award), the complainant decided to approach the CDRC. The complainant has all the rights to approach a Quasi-Judicial and Judicial body to reopen the case right to the Supreme Court of India until the complainant is satisfied with the investigation and verdict of the case. The Complainant has taken legal consultation from Online Legal India stating all the facts of the case clearly to the assigned Advocate. The legal consultants have thoroughly scrutinized the case and have seen merit in the case therefore decided to proceed. The layman complainant has taken steps under the supervision of legal consultants and advocates.
18. Responding to point number 17. All the facts are stated bonafide and truly in case CC/353/2022. The complainant has fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, absolute privilege, and has the constitutional right to share the stories and the public orders by the court, with the public related to the ongoing case to collect views and reviews that could strengthen his stand in the case. The allegation of Defamation by OP HDFC ERGO doesn’t satisfy the context and is baseless.
19. Responding to point number 18. The OP has surfaced the Judgement of ‘Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66’ in the ‘WRITTEN VERSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPONENTS’ in point number 12. The complainant Ratul Aich has responded in detail ‘CC/353/2022 Edaakhil A22090004397 OP HDFC ERGO Response Received on 17 Jan 2023 Objected and Replied by Complainant Ratul Aich.’
20. The most important aspect of all is the cross-verification of the data that I’ve submitted to DCDRC. The data submitted by me shouldn’t be validated at face value but that should be verified in Google Fit System. The claimed data couldn’t be verified and therefore a discount on that data couldn’t be calculated by HDFC ERGO, so they are sticking to the 3433 steps in point number 13 of ‘AFFIDAVIT IN CHIEF UNDER THE ORDER 18, RULE 4 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON BEHALF OF THE OPP. PARTY ABOVENAMED’ submitted by OP HDFC ERGO on 19 July 2024.
21. The case CC-353–2022 is an effort to draw the attention of the government through the quasi-judicial body towards a limited timespan in the availability of data on Google servers. Google introduced an optional feature of retaining the data for 3 months and deleting any historic data beyond the time period. The retention of data by technology companies for a very short period of time will directly impact the evidence collection and justice system’s traditional timeline arrangements.
22. I’d request CDRC to establish the authenticity of the data submitted by the plaintiff by scrutinizing the Google Fit Server. This activity will strengthen the digital investigation procedure by Court Order. The OP HDFC ERGO couldn’t access the Google Fit Server so they couldn’t access and validate the historic data.
23. The investigation of at-scale suspected digital exploitation by technology companies is expected to update the legal and judicial practices to serve timely justice to the citizens of India living in a tech-savvy society using enormous amounts of technology products and services on a daily basis. Therefore, I’d pray if the Quasi-Judicial Court (Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission) in any way finds itself short in taking up a thorough investigation, in that case, please escalate the matter internally to a specialized tribunal or appellate.
24. The digital investigation procedures need to be incorporated in CDRC because given the thrifty amount involved in the case CC/353/2022 seldom the complainants will find it encouraging to approach the Civil Court following up on the lengthy procedures of the Civil Court. CDRC also acts as a crucial vigilance reporting system in society. The peer-to-peer vigilance of consumers on the exploitation and adulteration of products and services is brought to the government’s notice by the CDRC platform.
25. The expectations of the society from the consumer court (CDRC) are different from those of the civil court. The consumer court is also the backbone for a peer-to-peer vigilance reporting system maintained by the public on the consumer products and services available in the market.
26. The smooth running of the Consumer Court and the verdicts encourages companies to manage the various testing departments resourcefully by appropriate resource allocation and project budgeting such that usability testing and quality assurance of products and services continue in a proper manner on a regular basis so that the safety of these products and services is maintained and no consumer is harmed or exploited while using them. Further reading reference. https://x.com/rat9/status/1813567038813839611
27. Extract taken from the “Reply to HDFC ERGO by Ratul Aich, on Written questionnaires put to Complainant as Cross-Examination on behalf of the Opposite Party above named.”
28. Data Missing from HDFC ERGO System. Data partially calculated. The yearly data was properly tracked and registered in the Google Fit Application of Plaintiff Ratul Aich Mobile. HDFC ERGO app was properly installed in Ratul Aich Mobile. The Data is retrieved from the Google Fit app by the HDFC ERGO app. The data retrieval process is faulty. HDFC ERGO Software Testing (QC, QA) and Usability Testing are deficient. Various checkpoints were not created by the Dev Team, Quality Assurance, and Quality Control team to check the health of an installed signed-in app, resulting in such failure.
29. Dark Pattern,
    (a) Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. PIB Release ID 1936432. Heading — Department of Consumer Affairs urges online platforms to refrain from adopting ‘dark patterns’ harming consumer interest. Point 4 (ix) Hidden Costs. The stay active step counts quarterly data and subsequent quarterly discount, and total step counts and subsequent total discount are not visible in the checkout flow of renewal.
    (b) Point 4 (vii) Interface Interference. UX Red Route Compromised. UX User Flow Compromised. I’ll explain it through an Analogy (presumed story). Say, HDFC ERGO has a district office in North 24 Parganas. Assume that all the sales activities are mailed to home by post. Assume that to find the answer to address any query of the insuree, they have to visit the HDFC ERGO district office. Assume to file for reimbursement and receive the amount the insuree has to visit Mumbai Head Office.
    In a similar manner, most of the sales transactions and Q&A are taken up online through the HDFC ERGO web or mobile app interface. But when it comes to discounts, the insuree is expected to email a few days before the renewal, such that the team can calculate and reply over email. This is time-consuming and a deliberate hindrance (speed breaker), created to reduce the number of insuree approaching for 8% discount to HDFC ERGO. 8% in Optima Restore policy, which is one of the highest selling policies of Apollo Munich/HDFC ERGO has a huge customer base. 8% yearly profit is a huge amount for a company. That amount could be used to manage competition. Therefore, class action, at scale investigation demanded, and if required Competition Commission of India involvement is prayed. If it has not been checked legally, every other technology company will follow the profiteering practice. A year later in Oct-Nov 2022 nothing improved (no UX improved), the email conversation was submitted already.
30. HDFC ERGO Customer Care Executive lied on Official Communication.
    from: Care@HDFCERGO <care@hdfcergo.com>
    reply-to: care@hdfcergo.com
    to: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
    date: Dec 3, 2021, 5:14 PM
    subject: RE:’Service ID=050–097–286'[EXT] Re: Discount on policy renewal for steps covered
    mailed-by: hdfcergo.com
    signed-by: hdfcergo.com
    Dear Ratul,
    Greetings from HDFC ERGO General Insurance.
    With reference to your e-mail dated 3rd December 2021 regarding stay active discount under policy number 2805203553540501.
    Kindly accept our sincere apologies, for the inconvenience caused to you.
    We wish to inform you that, as per update received form the concern unit that under policy number 2805203553540501 stay active discount was not applicable in policy period of 2020 to 2021.
    Wishing you good health and happiness!
    Thanks and Regards,
    Bittu Kumar Shah
31. 30 Nov 2020 to 27 Feb 2021 Quarter 1 data collected by Google Fit App installed in Ratul Aich mobile phone. You may refer to the images with the document submitted, Judicial Investigation Friendly Digital Systems, Judibility. (https://rat9.medium.com/judicial-investigation-friendly-digital-systems-judibility-b121000a2280). HDFC ERGO collected partial data of average steps approx 3433. Here is the calculation of Google Fit data for the first quarter.
    (29 Nov to 5 Dec 2020) 32193 + 38085 + 60399 + 30360 + 39670 + 55196 + 53164 + 63031 + 22392 + 45134 + 78872 + 41442 + 43480 (21 Feb to 27 Feb 2021) = approximately 603418 total steps divided by 90 days = approximately 6704.64 average steps per day. This data couldn’t be collected and cross-verified by HDFC ERGO internally with the Google Fit app to establish the authenticity of the data provided by the complainant (insuree) Ratul Aich. This data must be cross-verified by CDRC by order with Google Fit app to establish the authenticity. It could be verified manually or digitally. Verifying this data digitally is prayed for because it will upgrade the law and order digital processes in a tech-savvy society.
32. The system of investigation has to be designed in such a way that the cost, time, and effort invested in digital investigations are effective yet proportional to the significance of the average case, at-scale impact, and annual volume of cases. The significance of criminal cases is high, therefore greater cost, time, and effort can be put into such cases. Similarly, the cost, time, and effort should be calculated proportionally to the significance, at-scale impact, and annual volume of civil cases and consumer cases to design the system of investigation by the principles of service design and the principles of ecosystem design.
33. My prayer from District CDRC is that the verdict should bring a positive transformation in the internal operations of fintech and insurance companies in the best interest of the end consumer.
34. To, The Hon’ble President DCDRC Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 700126.
    CC/353/2022.
    Subject — Verbally Humiliated by an Official in Court DCDRC Barasat in front of President — Formal Complaint.
    I’m a BSc Graduate in Visual Communication with approximately 15 years of experience in User Experience served as a Principal Consultant (Sr Manager level) of UX in Harman Connected Services (2016–2017), and pursuing an MA in Mass Communication and Journalism. I’ve all the reasons to live with dignity and exercise academic skills and practices.
    Today on 19 July 2024, I appeared for the CC/353/2022 hearing. It is during the hearing I’ve been asked to give a reason to not submit a document on 12 July 2024. To which I answered that as I’m a pro-se-litigant layman and as the President DCDRC, Barasat, directed me on 12 July 2024 at around 4:20 PM (approximately) to get the documents notarized, I returned around 5.30 pm from the District Court, Barasat, and found the court premises closed. I took some photographs of the closed premises as evidence and on the next day, I sent the documents by registered post as I thought the locally sent registered post would reach the court in 2–3 days.
    Today, I’ve been humiliated and heckled on the floor of the court by one of the clerks/officials in front of the President.
    The President was enquiring about the reason for not submitting the documents on 12 July 2024. I was showing the President the photographs to affirm that I did visit the court after notarising the documents on 12 July 2024 but it was closed.
    One of the clerks (Local name Hala da) was continuously heckling and taunting me in front of the President. His words, ‘He often takes photographs’, ‘He got a habit of taking photographs’, ‘Why did you take photos of a Government Establishment?’ etc. To which I got distracted and tried to reply to him that I’m a Visual Communication professional, and Pursuing Mass Communication and Journalism, therefore taking photographs is a routine practice. The President, seeing me distracted, scolded me in front of everyone to which I apologize. But I’d like to raise the issue of indecent behavior with the plaintiff in court premises by the clerk spoiling the decorum of the court right in front of the President. This surface lack of humility towards fellow people in court and professional misconduct. Professional training to behave properly in court premises must be evaluated.
    I’ve not seen him humiliating by heckling anyone else, so why is such an attitude taken towards me? Is it premeditated or an outcome of a conversation (gossip) behind my back?
    Therefore, grieving over this incident, I’m complaining about this to the respective authority and I’d request you to evaluate the training for professional conduct given to officials in court premises as such indecent behavior is concerning to the layman plaintiffs visiting court.
    I’ve already complained about discrimination to the President, DCDRC, Barasat, in writing, in case CC/354/2022.
    From: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
    To: gro@hdfcergo.com
    Cc: confo-pn-wb@nic.in, dr.ncdrc@gov.in, ncdrc@nic.in, wb-sforum@nic.in, confo-rh-wb@gov.in
    Date: Jul 19, 2024, 4:22 PM
    Subject: Fwd: Verbally Humiliated by an Official in Court DCDRC Barasat — Formal Complaint
    Mailed-by: gmail.com
    Regards,
    Ratul Aich

AGREEMENTS ADVANCED IN BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

1. The opposite party failed to appreciate that the subject matter of the complaint is fully within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of this Act and the opposite party failed to perform his promises or did not fulfill his part, which is within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

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

Previous in the series is Argument by HDFC ERGO CC-353–2022. (Link)

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