Justice requires that bank indemnifies old R $ 30 thousand per prevent you from using bathroomThe elderly 80 years, MS Bearer, He was forced to do the physiological needs in the public service area. The agency is located at Av. Djalma Batista.
Judge Antonio Carlos Marinho, Special Juvenile Court of the 12th Civil District of the Manaus, ordered a bank to pay R $ 30 thousand as compensation for moral damage, an elderly client over 80 years, MS Bearer, prevented from using the bathroom of one of the institution agencies, Features of. Djalma Batista, He was forced to do the physiological needs in the public service area, the sight of other customers.
As the case, accompanied by his wife and caregiver, the old customer went to the bank branch in order to carry out a service and, after performing the operation, He was stricken by a sudden illness, strong need to urinate. By asking permission to use one of the agency's bathrooms, this had the denied request, fact that forced him to carry out the physiological need in self-service room in the sight of others. the act, the elderly - even in shaken state - was even warned by the manager of the establishment.
Urged to speak out before Judgment, the bank through its defense, He claimed that the author of the Cause would adentrado the agency's premises after close of business for the sole purpose of using one of your bathrooms, goal that had been denied for security reasons. It further claimed inexistence of legal rules that allow citizens enter inside the premises of the bank after the close of business and urination on self-service room the elderly gave rise to indecent assault, reason for the intervention of your servers.
In its decision, Judge Antonio Carlos Marinho said there is no defense interests of private property - claiming bank security - that might supplant the respect for the dignity of an elderly client, multiple sclerosis and visibly ailing carrier that requesting access to one of the bathrooms had denied the request by recipients.
on the record, says judge, that "the lack of specific ruling focused on the banking sector does not justify the refusal to the customer's humanitarian service in honor of the principle of human dignity, in this art. 1º, section III of the Federal Constitution. OBEY, still, that the security itself (the agency) I could have followed the customer bathroom, which would be enough to dissuade you from investing against the equity of the bank ", He mentioned the magistrate.
The Antonio Carlos Marinho judge cited, still, in the case that "when the author was unable to prevent the realization of patronage on the spot, he was surprised at the manager's efficiency - not previously demonstrated - in the performance of their duties fulfilled the desideratum firmly warn the elderly that was fading in place ashamed of reality itself that fell upon him at that moment ", He quoted the magistrate.
By stating that the vexed situation that has the author of the question in the agency premises "is enough to break the inner peace of the individual given the excepcionalíssimas circumstances of the episode that involved the account holder, bringing you trouble (…) direct offense to the primacy of human dignity (art. 1º. III of the Constitution)”, the holder of the 12th Special Civil Court ordered the bank to pay compensation for moral damages arbitrated at R $ 30 thousand in favor of the elderly.