The acknowledgement was missing, but the action might have happened

I began with overnight distribution files, when a missed acknowledgement could leave a warehouse waiting for an instruction that had already been processed. Sending it again was easy. Knowing whether the second message represented another delivery or the same delivery was the harder part. That question followed me from distribution into insurance. The cost of getting it wrong changed, but the underlying distinction remained: similarity in a record does not establish sameness in the business.

I grew up in Patiala and completed computer science at the fictional Belqethi Computing College in June 1994. In July I joined Jezvani Distribution Services as a systems operator. The company employed 110 people and earned ₹24 crore revenue for FY ending March 1995. I worked in a seven-person operations group without direct reports or independent spending. My responsibility was to monitor jobs, record failures and help supervisors understand what had completed. I did not decide stock ownership, customer terms or dispatch priorities simply because their records passed through the system.

I became integration lead in September 2001. Jezvani had 230 employees and ₹72 crore revenue for FY ending March 2002. Twelve colleagues worked through two leads within ₹93 lakh annual technology expense. We connected order, warehouse and invoicing systems whose definitions did not always align. Two records could share a customer name while referring to different buying entities, and a late message could contain an event that had happened earlier. I learned to ask the business to explain identity and time before choosing the fields that would represent them.

Qorzuni recruited me as platform manager in June 2008. The fictional commercial insurer had 210 employees and ₹310 crore gross written premium for FY ending March 2009. I led eighteen technology colleagues with six contractors counted separately, within ₹2.4 crore annual operating expense. Insurance required more learning than changing the labels on familiar systems. A receipt, an instruction and an accepted insurance change were different events. Underwriting, finance and operations colleagues had to define their responsibilities while technology preserved the evidence they needed. I could improve the record without deciding the contractual consequence myself.

In October 2015 I became head of IT. The employer then had 390 employees and ₹780 crore gross written premium for FY ending March 2016. My remit comprised 41 employees, ten contractors and ₹8.6 crore annual operating expense. I became more involved in projects that looked successful from the data-centre view while leaving a business question unresolved. We could preserve a timestamp without preserving the meaning of the date, or release a screen that worked for its developer but prevented a colleague using a keyboard from completing the task. I began asking for demonstrations of the awkward cases alongside the ordinary journey.

The CIO appointment followed in January 2021. I now lead 72 employees through five heads, with eighteen contractors separately counted. FY2026–27 authority covers ₹18.4 crore operating expense and ₹6.7 crore approved change investment, with the accounting classification reviewed by finance. The insurer has 680 employees, twenty-two branches and ₹1,540 crore gross written premium for FY ending March 2026. CEO Meena Qarvani owns enterprise direction; COO Dinesh Dovqari and authorised insurance specialists retain their decisions. I present to directors as an executive without a statutory seat.

Our receipt-message review examined 238 queried or repeated messages within a 12,600-message population. We found 142 retries, 84 distinct instructions and twelve cases needing reconciliation. The technology change cost ₹78 lakh, with ₹12 lakh annual support expense. A separate entity review examined 740 proposed merges and kept 487 distinct entities apart, while 57 matches remained unresolved. Neither project justified a broad claim that customer records were now perfect. They changed how the system represented uncertainty and who needed to resolve it.

The date-view project was uncomfortable because I had accepted a design that favoured the most recently entered record. In a review of 180 changes, 37 were shown in the wrong business-time view. We spent ₹92 lakh preserving effective and recorded dates separately, with authorised specialists controlling the underlying change. Of 102 test scenarios, 88 were supported by the revised path and fourteen legacy scenarios still required assistance. Keyboard review created a similar obligation to retain unfinished work: 56 of sixty tasks passed after a ₹1.2 crore change programme, while four retained an assisted route supported by ₹24 lakh annual capacity.

I am considering one first external board appointment, with 23 days provisionally available and employer consent still required. My fictional IICA registration dates from July 2026; assessment preparation remains unfinished and no exemption is claimed. My Punjabi, Hindi and English reflect my own background, not an assumption about every language used around the business. I would bring a habit of asking what a system's record means, what its test actually established and who remains responsible for the conclusion. I would also bring the experience of having accepted an apparently simple design before understanding the distinction it erased.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Punjabi · Hindi · English