Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
With Decision Recognizing Charge Considered Abusive in Age Adjustment, Court Orders Refund of Amounts and Exposes Limits for Increases in Individual Plans, Reinforcing Protection for the Elderly, Requirement for Adequate Actuarial Basis, and Compliance with ANS Rules in Long-term Contracts and SUSEP, Preventing Severe Distortions.
According to the Conjur portal, the court ruling that sentenced an operator to refund R$ 71,200 to a beneficiary raises the debate about how far health plans can go in adjusting premiums based on age. In this case, the judge understood that there was an abusive charge, especially involving retroactive increases and without a clear contractual basis.
Even recognizing that aging increases risk and may justify adjustments, the magistrate emphasized that this right of operators has limits. Supported by the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice, he reinforced that any increase must comply with technical criteria, rules from the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS) and SUSEP, as well as preserving the balance between cost and the consumer’s payment capacity.
When Age Adjustment Becomes Considered Abusive Charge
The starting point of the process was the adjustment applied when the beneficiary turned 60 years old.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The increase, combined with other adjustments, made the premium much heavier, leading the consumer to seek the court to discuss the legality of the charge considered abusive.
By the parameters set in Topic 952 of the STJ, age-based adjustments are allowed in individual and family plans, but they must meet three pillars: be provided for in the contract, follow official norms, and not be disproportionate or discriminatory against the elderly.
When these criteria are ignored, what could be a legitimate adjustment turns into a charge considered abusive, subject to review and refund of amounts.
What the Expert Examination Revealed About the Plan Adjustments
During the process, a technical examination was conducted to assess whether the percentages applied were supported by actuarial science and the rules of ANS and SUSEP.
The report indicated that, generally speaking, the adjustments forecasted for age groups from zero to 71 years were aligned with legislation and risk calculations.
The problem arose in the period reviewed by the judge. The expert identified that, in addition to age adjustments and cost variations, there were charges for retroactive increases related to a term of conduct adjustment made in 2004.
These additional amounts started to weigh on the beneficiary’s premium, without sufficient transparency and without a direct connection to her current age group.
At this point, the conclusion was clear: the sum of the increases, especially the retroactive ones, distorted the balance of the contract and transformed what could be a justifiable adjustment into a charge considered abusive.
Why the Court Ordered the Refund of R$ 71,200 to the Consumer
Given the evidence produced, the judge recognized the abusiveness of how the adjustments were charged and ordered the operator to refund the excess amounts paid.
The amount, updated, totaled R$ 71,200, to be refunded with monetary correction from each payment and interest.
The decision maintained the possibility of age adjustment but cut the excesses. In practice, the message is clear: it is not enough to claim financial balance to justify successive increases, as the line between legitimate adjustment and abusive charge is drawn by the numbers, the official rules, and reasonableness.
On the other hand, the judge dismissed the request for compensation for moral damages. For him, the breach of contract and the irregular charge, in themselves, are insufficient to constitute a compensable moral injury without proof of more severe consequences, such as unjust denial of treatment or interruption of essential care.
What This Decision Teaches About Adjustments and Elderly Rights
The case reinforces an important point: the consumer is not required to accept any increase simply because it appears on the bill.
Whenever there is doubt about the calculation basis, percentages applied, or retroactivity of charges, it is possible to request formal explanations from the operator and, if necessary, seek legal support or consumer protection agencies.
The decision values transparency and predictability in health contracts, especially for those entering the most sensitive age group in the system.
In practice, it shows that the Judiciary is vigilant in preventing aging from being used as a generic justification for abusive charges without technical backing or respect for the rules.
For those following the topic, this type of ruling is likely to serve as a reference in other actions, encouraging operators to review adjustment models and consumers to question increases that seem disproportionate.
And you, have you ever suspected that an increase in your health plan could hide a charge considered abusive?
-
-
5 pessoas reagiram a isso.