BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF NAVI MUMBAI
APPEAL FILED UNDER THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SAMEER DESAI …………………………………………APPELLANT
v.
NEUROHEAL PVT. LTD. ………………………………………RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SC – Supreme Court
IT Act – Information Technology Act, 2000
DPDPA – Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
MCI – Medical Council of India
HC – High Court
IPC – Indian Penal Code
COI – Constitution of India
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES REFERRED
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to
Privacy as a fundamental right.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Data protection and freedom of
speech.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 – Protection of personal
information in the public domain.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble District Court of Navi Mumbai has the jurisdiction to try, entertain,
and dispose of the present appeal by virtue of:
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
Information Technology Act, 2000
Medical Council of India (Ethics) Regulations, 2002
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sameer Desai, a patient using an AI-powered brain stimulation device manufactured
by NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd., discovered that his sensitive medical data was accessed by
insurance companies, allegedly without his consent.
Shortly after, Sameer received increased insurance premiums and even faced denial
of claims, which he believes was a direct result of the unauthorized data sharing.
NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd. maintains that the data was legally shared under a consent
agreement that Sameer had signed when he first started using the device. The
company insists that it followed all data protection laws and that insurance
companies make premium decisions based on multiple factors.
Sameer Desai filed a case against NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd., claiming a breach of privacy
under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, seeking compensation for
financial and emotional damages.
The lower court ruled in favor of NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd., stating that there was no
concrete evidence proving that the company had illegally shared data or that it was
solely responsible for the insurance-related consequences.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Sameer Desai has now filed an appeal, arguing that
his right to privacy was violated and seeking a reversal of the decision.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
a) Whether NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd. lawfully shared the patient’s data in compliance
with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.b) Whether the increase in
insurance premiums can be attributed to NeuroHeal’s actions or external market
factors.c) Whether Sameer Desai is entitled to damages from NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. NEUROHEAL PVT. LTD. ACTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH PRIVACY LAWS
Informed Consent: The patient had signed a consent form that allowed for data
sharing with third-party entities, including insurance firms.
Compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: NeuroHeal adhered
to legal provisions for handling sensitive personal data.
2. NO DIRECT CAUSATION BETWEEN DATA SHARING AND INCREASED PREMIUMS
Insurance companies use multiple factors (medical history, financial records, risk
assessment) to adjust premiums.
No conclusive evidence proves that NeuroHeal’s data sharing directly led to
increased rates.
3. NO LEGAL BASIS FOR DAMAGES
No financial harm caused by NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd.
No breach of contract or negligence by the company.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
1. NEUROHEAL COMPLIED WITH ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Under Section 6 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, explicit consent
is required for data processing. NeuroHeal obtained this consent through a legally
binding agreement.
The company followed all necessary encryption and cybersecurity measures to ensure
the data was securely processed and shared only with authorized entities.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Privacy) was not violated as the
consent form was clear and legally binding, with no evidence of coercion or
misrepresentation.
2. NO PROVEN LINK BETWEEN DATA SHARING AND PREMIUM INCREASE
The burden of proof is on the appellant to show that data sharing directly resulted
in financial harm.
Insurance companies operate independently and consider various risk factors before
determining premium rates, making it impossible to directly attribute the increase
to NeuroHeal’s actions.
There is no verifiable data or third-party expert opinion proving that the shared
medical data alone caused financial damage to the appellant.
3. DAMAGES CLAIM IS UNFOUNDED
The appellant has not provided sufficient evidence of financial loss directly
caused by NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd.
There is no medical negligence involved, as the AI-powered device functioned
correctly and provided accurate readings.
The claim for emotional distress lacks substantive proof and does not meet the
legal threshold for compensation under privacy laws and tort claims.
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In light of the circumstances, arguments, and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
a) Uphold the lower court’s ruling in favor of NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd.b) Reject the
appellant’s claim for damages as there is no direct evidence of harm.c) Affirm that
NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd. complied with privacy laws and did not violate the Digital
Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
d) Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of
justice.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Respondent – NeuroHeal Pvt. Ltd.)
