Pregnant woman is compensated R$5,000 after receiving wrong medication at a private hospital in Natal

What happened The action reports that the patient was undergoing prenatal care and that, due to an iron deficiency - a condition that increases the risk of premature birth and damage to fetal development - the doctor accompanying her prescribed specific treatment with the drug Ferinject. In December 2025, the patient went to the hospital to apply the medication, paying the amount of R$934.45. According to the patient, at the time of application, the serum arrived to her in brown color, with the medicine diluted. The pregnant woman asked to see the medicine bottle, which was denied by the nursing technician with the justification that it had already been thrown away and that the patient had not asked to see it before. Suspicious, the pregnant woman sent an email to the hospital ombudsman asking for information about the medication being administered. She also reinforced that the identification of the medication was not presented, whether through the ampoule, bottle or any other visual means that would allow her to check the prescribed medication. Hospital reported that the medication administered was another In the action, the pregnant woman said that the hospital responded to the emails admitting the patient's right to check the medication and confirmed that the medication administered was Noripurum instead of Ferinject. In the email, the hospital promised to immediately refund the amount paid, which was never done. After the episode, the patient underwent an examination, in January 2026, in which the regression of ferritin levels was verified. What the hospital claimed in court In court, the hospital offered a settlement in the global value of R$1,000, maintaining that the change in medication did not produce relevant clinical harm, as both medications administered have a similar therapeutic purpose and do not pose any risk to the patient. The pregnant woman refused the settlement proposal and decided to continue with the process. Severity of failure to provide care, judge points out The judge responsible for the case highlighted in the decision that the company did not produce technical evidence that would dispute the patient's report and that, in her statement, she limited herself to stating that both medications have a similar therapeutic purpose. For the judge, the argument is considered insufficient to rule out the failure to provide the service, especially considering that the hospital itself recognized the mistake and that there was a regression in iron levels in the examination carried out afterwards by the author. “I note that there was an inadequate provision of the hospital service, with an error in the administration of medication, a violation of the duty to provide information and a lack of post-procedure care, facts that go beyond the limits of mere annoyance, especially because it involves a pregnant woman undergoing prenatal care,” he pointed out in the decision. "The need for reinforced security in a hospital environment, and the special vulnerability of pregnant women, aggravate the failure, justifying moral reparation”, stated judge Ana Cláudia Florêncio. The judge further explained that although the service was inadequately provided, it was not an undue charge, but rather a contracting of a service in which the execution was carried out incorrectly. The judge also pointed out that no unequivocal bad faith was found. "In relation to moral damage, it appears to be due to negligence, breach of the duty of safety and the specific vulnerability of the pregnant author, imposing proportional compensation", he decided. Most watched videos on g1 RN