Interval and that they were completely outside his consumption profile, in addition to exceeding the credit card limit, which was R$11,400. In a unanimous vote, the judging panel accepted the appeal. Initially, the rapporteur, judge Alberto Gosson, acknowledged that the author did not act with the necessary caution. "It is well known that scams such as cloning and others are quite common, no longer representing anything new that could surprise people. He bought drinks from a street vendor at night, not declining further details regarding the transaction as noted in the sentence. " However, according to the judge, the purchases of R$6,500 and R$6,800, in fact, are outside the author's consumption profile, in addition to having exceeded the credit card limit, which should have been blocked by the bank's system. Gosson said that situations like the one in the case must be analyzed based on the particularities presented.
Therefore, the rapporteur denied the request for compensation for moral damages, ordering the bank only to reimburse the two higher value purchases. "In view of the above, I understand that it is reasonable for the financial institution to be responsible for the compensation corresponding to the purchases of R$6,500 and R$6,800", concluded Gosson.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TJ-SP exempts laboratory for error in genetic investigation exam Tábata Viapiana March 13, 2023, 7:31 am Consu Venezuela Mobile Number List merCivil responsability As it did not envisage any harm to the plaintiff in the action, the 15th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo denied the request for compensation for moral damages made by a patient against a laboratory due to an error in the results of a genetic investigation exam. reproduction Reproduction São Paulo Court understood that error in the exam did not cause harm to the patient According to the records, the woman was diagnosed with breast cancer for the second time and underwent genetic testing to find out whether the disease was hereditary.
The result was negative, but she repeated the test in another laboratory, which identified a pathogenic variant in a gene. Only after three months did the defendant laboratory correct the test result. Therefore, the patient filed a compensation action. The court of origin denied compensation because it understood that the error did not affect the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment. The sentence was unanimously upheld by the TJ-SP. The case's rapporteur was judge Ramon Mateo Júnior. "The diagnostic error itself is not discussed, which was admittedly admitted and corrected, with a second examination carried out in another laboratory, but its effective consequences in relation to the diagnosis of the disease and its treatment, a negative reflection that in a well-founded manner was not verified, leading to the dismissal of the compensation claim", maintained the rapporteur.