A Florianopolis judge upheld the preliminary injunction and condemned a public health plan to provide a robotic radical prostate vesiculectomy surgical procedure for a patient diagnosed with prostate cancer. The verdict was passed by Judge Fernando de Castro Faria on a lawsuit that was heard in the 2nd civil court of the capital of Santa Catarina.

According to the magistrate, it is the responsibility of the plan to provide the requested methods and treatments when there is a specific need – Photo: Pixabay/Reproduction/ND

When considering the case, the justice of the peace noted that the medical documentation attached to the process indicated the exact purpose of treatment for robot-assisted radical prostatovesiculectomy, justified and based on the specific case, urgency and time of diagnosis.

Regulations issued by the ANS (National Health Agency) establish an indicative list of procedures to be adopted by health plan operators, i.e. they provide for the minimum coverage that must be protected by the organization.

“Thus, the above list does not prohibit other procedures that become necessary for the patient, and it is the responsibility of the defendant to provide the requested methods and treatments when there is no contractual prohibition of the disease in a certain way, as is the case with records,” Faria wrote.

Restricting the provision of treatment when there is no exclusion of the disease underscores the proposal, virulently insulting the CDPC (Consumer Protection Code), which prohibits offensive provisions, including those that limit essential obligations inherent in the nature of the covenant. .

“Therefore, it is up to the doctor, not the health plan, to determine the best treatment for the person being helped. What is important to state indicated the need for treatment, ”the judge emphasized.

The claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, conceived by the patient, however, was not recognized by the justice of the peace. As mentioned in the sentence, the mere negotiation or breach of a contract does not in itself cause an emotional shock that can be repaid. Appeal to the court.