DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PERKARA PERDATA TERKAIT TINDAKAN MALAPRAKTIK OPERASI CAESAR (SECTIO CAESAREA)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the basis of legal considerations of judges in the case of disparity in decisions related to medical malpractice caesarean section which result in patient death and is specifically studied through the South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 484/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Jkt.Sel., DKI Jakarta High Court Decision Number 66/Pdt/2016/PT.DKI, and Supreme Court Decision Number 1001 K/Pdt/2017. This type of research in legal writing is normative juridical which is carried out through literature studies on secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, as well as interviews with judges and academics who have an understanding of the problems in this research. The results of this study indicate that there are several parameters can be used as guidelines for civil court judges in deciding medical disputes. First, regarding unlawful acts in medical malpractice, namely (i) the process of medical malpractice lawsuits in court does not require an MKDKI decision beforehand; (ii) PTUN decisions that cancel MKDKI and KKI decisions do not eliminate substantial facts in MKDKI decisions; (iii) MKDKI and KKI decisions have binding evidentiary value; (iv) disciplinary violations can be categorized as legal violations if they have also been regulated in legal provisions; and (v) medical disputes must first be resolved through mediation. Second, regarding civil liability in medical malpractice, namely, the patient's loss in medical malpractice is not only the responsibility of the doctor who performed the medical action, but the hospital and the hospital owner can also be subject to Article 1367 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health in conjunction with Article 46 of Law Number 44 concerning Hospitals.