Visually Challenged Lawyer Files Complaint Against Practo Before Chief Commissioner Under Disabilities Act Citing Accessibility Barriers

A complaint has been filed before the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities against Practo Technologies alleging that its services were not effectively accessible to persons suffering from blindness and is therefore in gross violation of several provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The complaint has been filed by Rahul Bajaj, a lawyer with blindness within the purview of the Act alleging that there were several accessibility barriers to using Practo on iOS. 

Practo is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. Founded in 2008, Practo is a leading healthcare platform that connects patients with healthcare providers around the world. It helps consumers find healthcare providers, book appointments, online doctor consultations, get their tests done and order medicines. It also provides software products that help healthcare providers including clinics and hospitals to digitize their processes.

It has been alleged that Practo has been in gross violation of Chapter VIII (Duties and Responsibilities of Appropriate Governments) and Section 46 of the Act along with Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

The complainant has pointed out that he has no effective access to the Practo iOS application due to several accessibility barriers which include: 

1) The home screen of the app is thoroughly unorganized and completely inaccessible with screen reading software. Some buttons are not labelled at all. Some others have nonsensical labels such as 'tertiary half one image label' and 'secondary third subtitle label';

2)  The second page is also completely unlabeled and inaccessible.

3) Even if one is somehow able to indicate one's health needs and find search results, the results are inaccessible. This is because all the information as to a given doctor viz. how much they charge, what their work experience is, etc., is presented in one go, rather than being presented as different data points.

4) The lab testing information is similarly provided in a jumbled up fashion in one go.

5) The app randomly crashes of its own accord from time to time.

"Owing to all of these barriers combined, the experience of accessing the app for the complainant is akin to a sighted person being required to access an app in a foreign language that she does not understand," reads the complaint. 

It has also been pointed out that the complainant had addressed a series of representations to Practo, urging it to remedy these accessibility barriers but to no avail. He alleges that no concrete steps were taken by the respondent to address the accessibility barriers. 

"The Complainant was led down the garden path by Practo, by making empty promises and giving half-hearted assurances that his concerns would be looked into."

The private sector's obligation to make its offerings accessible to the disabled and to provide them reasonable accommodation was underscored in a Supreme Court decision in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 84). 

Therefore, it has been argued that the respondent's continued failure to make Practo accessible to blind users makes it liable to face the full panoply of legal consequences flowing from the applicable statutory contraventions.

The complainant added that both Google (for Android) and Apple (for IOS) have specified design guidelines that the developers of any mobile application are expected to follow to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities.

In fact, he contended that it is common knowledge that the pathways to make any application disabled-friendly can be accessed by any willing service provider.

On these grounds, it was prayed that Practo be penalized for continued non-compliance with the Act and the Rules, and be directed to conduct an accessibility audit across all platforms viz. Mobile, Tablet and Web and submit the Accessibility Audit report along with a statement of remedial actions taken within 3 months.

Case Title: Rahul Bajaj v. Practo Technologies Pvt. Ltd.