iv
TANGGUNG JAWAB GANTI KERUGIAN
RUMAH SAKIT BERSTATUS BADAN LAYANAN UMUM KEPADA KORBAN MALPRAKTIK
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh kasus dugaan malpraktik yang terjadi di suatu Rumah Sakit yang berbentuk Badan Layanan Umum dengan contoh Perkara Nomor 287/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.PST antara Tuan Gunawan (Penggugat) melawan Badan Layanan Umum Rumah Sakit dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo (Tergugat), bahwa di dalam ekspesinya kuasa hukum Tergugat menyatakan “ BLU bukan subjek hukum melainkan merupakan bentuk penyelenggaraan suatu unit kerja dengan pengelolaan badan layanan umum, sehingga tidak tepat dijadikan sebagai pihak yang digugat di pengadilan bHrdasarkan pernyataan tersebut pihak Tergugat telah menafikkan prinsip equality before the law, yaitu bahwa semua orang maupun badan hukum dianggap sama di hadapan hukum, sehingga suatu rumah sakit yang berbentuk Badan Layanan Umum sekalipun tidak dapat dilepaskan dari jeratan hukum. Penelitian ini bertujuan, pertama, untuk menentukan kedudukan hukum Rumah Sakit Badan Layanan Umum selaku subjek hukum dikaitkan dengan KUHPerdata. Kedua, untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis pertanggungjawaban Rumah Sakit Badan Layanan umum berkaitan dengan ganti kerugian kepada pasien akibat tindakan malpraktik.
Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitis. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan berupa studi kepustakaan (library research) untuk mendapatkan bahan-bahan atau data-data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer maupun bahan hukum sekunder yang dianalisis secara kualitatif untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang diajukan.
v
HOSPITAL’S DAMAGES RESPONSIBILITY AS A PU ERVICE AGENCY TOWARDS MALPRACTICE VICTIMS
ASTRACT
Background of this research was triggered by the notion of malpractice case that happening at Hospital with form of Public Service Agency. Using example Case Number 287/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.PST between Mr. Gunawan (Plaintiff) againts Public Service Agency dr. Cipto
Mangunkusumo Hospital (Defendant), in exception phase, Defendant’s
attorney stated that “Public Service Agency is not a legal subject to the law, but rather an enforcement form of a working unit with public service agency management, hence it was not proper being a party that sued at a
court”. The statements of Defendant’s attorney has denied an equality before the law principle, that stated every persons and legal persons entitity are considered equal before the law, thus even a hospital with form of Public Service Agency can not escape from the bondage of law. Purposes of this research are, first, to conclude legal status of Public Service Agency Hospital as a subject of law according to Indonesian Burgerlijke Wetboek ( ). Second, to find out and to analyze Public Service Agency Hospital’s responsibility according to patient’s
damage caused by malpractic act.
This research is using a normative juridical approach with analytical descriptive reseacrh specification. Data collection techniques is using library research method to obtain materials or secondary data in the form both of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials that were analyzed qualitatively to answer the submitted research question.
This research concludes that: First, legal status of Public Service Agency Hospital as a subject of law according to Indonesian Burgerlijke Wetboek ( ) did not meet neither the formal juridical
requirements, nor the material conditions requirement to be considered as a subject of law. While the ability of law (rechtsbevoegdheid) to take such a legal action with others party was obtained from the abundant authority of delegation, that delegated from its chief institution. Second, in the event of malpractice occured in order to provide health care services at Public Service Agency Hospital, the hospital may be burdened with the responsibilities to provide restitution to the victim of the unlawful act by
