Image by AI

Salient Contemplation of Verdict Pronounced by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

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)

Index of Health Checkup Claim Repudiation Lawsuit CC-354–2022. (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 and Orders CC-353–2022. Final proceedings page number 71 onwards. (Link)

1. No deliberate attempt has been made to conceal the information of the Insurance Ombudsman from DCDRC.
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In the course of the 2 years, DCDRC could have asked for any additional documents if required.
8. 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. (Link)
9. The relief amount and a few other details have been misspelled.
10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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.

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 and Orders CC-354–2022. Final proceedings page number 41 onwards. (Link)

1. No deliberate attempt has been made to conceal the information of the Insurance Ombudsman from DCDRC.
2. 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)
3. A copy of the Insurance Ombudsman has been submitted with the Evidence (Affidavit in Chief) as well.
4. 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)
5. 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.

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)

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)

Last edited on 12 November 2024.