DILAN SEMU FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSIT

DILAN SEMU FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS SEBELAS MARET
PERKARA MALPRAKTEK


Sidang Jumat, 12 Juni 2015
Petugas Ruang
Majelis Hakim memasuki ruang sidang, hadirin diminta untuk berdiri . Setelah hakim duduk, hadirin dipersilahkan duduk kembali.

Hakim Ketua Hakim : Moot Court Faculty of Law, Sebelas Maret University yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara pidana Nomor 365/Criminal/2012 Faculty of Law, Sebelas Maret University, atas nama dr. Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani ( terdakwa I ), dr. Handry Simanjuntak ( Terdakwa II ), dan dr. Hendy Siagian ( Terdakwa III ), dinyatakan dibuka dan terbuka untuk umum. (Ketuk palu 3 kali).
JPU : Saudara terdakwa, dipersilahkan masuk dalam ruang persidangan (terdakwa dalam keadaan bebas dan didampingi kuasa hukumnya kemudian duduk di kursi yang telah disiapkan).
Hakim : Untuk saudara Ipda Natasha Olga selaku perwakilan dari pihak Kepolisian dipersilahkan membacakan Berkas Acara Pemeriksaannya, apakah sudah siap?
Polisi : Iya bu Hakim.
Polisi : Para terdakwa, dr. Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani ( terdakwa I ), dr. Handry Simanjuntak ( Terdakwa II ), dan dr. Hendy Siagian ( Terdakwa III ) pada tanggal 10 April 2010, pada pukul 22.00 WITA. Kejadian tersebut bertempat di Ruangan Operasi Rumah Sakit Umum Prof. Dr. R.D Kandouw Malalayang Kota Manado. Terdakwa tersebut telah melakukan kealpaan sehingga menyebabkan matinya matinya orang lain yaitu Siska Makatey.
Perbuatan tersebut dilakukan para terdakwa dengan cara sebagai berikut :
Bahwa terdakwa sebagai dokter melaksanakan operasi Cito Secsio Sesaria terhadap korban Siska Makatey, terdakwa lalai dalam menangani korban pada saat masih hidup dan saat pelaksanaan operasi terhadap diri korban terjadi emboli udara yang masuk ke dalam bilik kanan jantung yang menghambat darah masuk ke paru - paru sehingga terjadi kegagalan fungsi jantung.
Berdasarkan penyelidikan tersebut, di temukan bukti sebagai berikut :
1. Surat pernyatan telah dirawat
2. Laporan Operasi
3. Laporan Observasi persalinan Siska Makatey
4. Klinical Patway
5. Diagnosa akhir
6. Surat persetujuan tindakan khusus
7. Anamnesis utama Siska Makatey
8. Anamnesis kebidanan Siska Makatey
9. Visum et Repertum
Hakim : Baik selanjutnya untuk Jaksa Penuntut Umum silahkan membacakan tuntutannya, apakah sudah siap?
JPU : Iya bu Hakim.
JPU I :Berdasarkan berita acara pemeriksaan kepolisian yang telah dibacakan tadi, pihak jaksa penuntut umum menuntut terdakwa dengan:
Bahwa pada waktu dan tempat sebagaimana tersebut di atas, dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Terdakwa I) sebagai dokter yang melakukan operasi dibantu dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Terdakwa II) dan dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Terdakwa III) sebagai asisten operator yang membantu jalannya operasi. Para terdakwa adalah dokter pada Rumah Sakit Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Manado yang melakukan operasi CITO SECSIO SESARIA terhadap korban SISKA MAKATEY. Sebelum operasi dilakukan para terdakwa tidak meminta persetujuan pada pihak keluarga atas kemungkinan yang akan terjadi pada korban termasuk kematian. Korban yang saat itu dalam keadaan lemah dengan status penyakit berat diberi anastesi dosis tinggi tanpa adanya pemeriksaan penunjang seperti pemeriksaan jantung, foto rontgen dada, alergi dan tekanan darah korban.
Perbuatan Para Terdakwa sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana dalam Pasal 359 KUHP Jis. Pasal 361 KUHP, Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke- 1 KUHP.
Bahwa semua terdakwa sebagai dokter dalam melaksanakan operasi CITO SECSIO SESARIA terhadap korban SISKA MAKATEY, lalai dalam menangani korban pada saat masih hidup dan saat pelaksaanaan operasi yaitu adanya kesalahan dalam memberikandan memasang cairan infus, sehingga emboli udara masuk ke dalam bilik kanan jantung dan paru-paru sehingga terjadi kegagalan fungsi paru, selanjutnya mengakibatkan kegagalan fungsi jantung.
Perbuatan Para Terdakwa sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana dalam Pasal 76 Undang-undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran.

JPU II :
Bahwa ternyata tanda tangan korban yang berada di dalam surat persetujuan tindakan khusus dan persetujuan pembedahan dan anestesi yang diserahkan oleh dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Terdakwa III) untuk ditandatangani oleh korban tersebut berbeda dengan tanda tangan korban yang berada di dalam Kartu Tanda Penduduk (KTP) dan Kartu Askes kemudian setelah dilakukan pemeriksaan oleh Laboratorium Forensik tanggal 09 Juni 2010 NO.LAB. : 509/DTF/2011, yang dilakukan oleh masing-masing lelaki Drs. SAMIR, S.St. Mk., lelaki ARDANI ADHIS, S. Amd dan lelaki MARENDRA YUDI L., SE., menyatakan bahwa tanda tangan atas nama SISKA MAKATEY alias JULIA FRANSISKA MAKATEY pada dokumen bukti adalah tanda tangan karangan/ “Spurious Signature“ .

Perbuatan Para Terdakwa sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana dalam Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHP Jo. Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP.
Hal ini didasarkan atas bukti dari Berita Acara Pemeriksaan dari Kepolisian yaitu :
1. Surat pernyatan telah dirawat
2. Laporan Operasi
3. Laporan Observasi persalinan Siska Makatey
4. Klinical Patway
5. Diagnosa akhir
6. Surat persetujuan tindakan khusus
7. Anamnesis utama Siska Makatey
8. Anamnesis kebidanan Siska Makatey
9. Visum et Repertum
Hakim : sauda
Hakim : Cukup saudara Jaksa. Selanjutnya kepada Penasehat Hukum apakah saudara sudah siap untuk membacakan pembelaan atau pledoinya?
Terdakwa Penasehat Hukum : Iya bu Hakim.
Penasehat Hukum I :
Dalam kenyataan pemberian obat dari infus tidak pernah masuk udara karena dari suntik disposible untuk masuk udara. Selanjutnya dari keputusn yang dibaca saksi baca dan saksi dapat dalam pendidikan saksi yaitu kemungkinan yang bisa juga adalah terutama dalam operasi persalinan bahkan dalam aturan dikatakan bahwa udara bisa masuk sering terjadi pada operasi bedah saraf dengan posisi pasien setengah duduk bisa terjadi pada saat dia terkemuka itu udara bisa masuk, pada bagian kebidanan yang bisa sering terjadi bukan saja pada SECTIO CESARIA tetapi juga pada kuretase bahkan dalam laporan kasus yaitu untuk hubungan intim dimana suami memakai oral itu bisa terjadi masuk udara. jadi kemungkinan udara yang masuk berdasarkan hasil visum bisa saja terjadi dari beberapa hal tadi, selanjutnya tugas anestesi dalam hal ini telah selesai karena pasien/ korban sudah membuka mata dan bernapas spontan kecuali jika saat pasien sebelum dirapihkan semua kemudian meninggal maka masih merupakan tugas dan tanggung jawab dari anestesi dan kebidanan.
Berdasarkan keterangan dari saksi Prof. Dr. NAJOAN NAN WAROUW, Sp.OG. bahwa Terdakwa I (satu) mengatakan : operasi terhadap pasien/ korban telah selesai dilaksanakan dan pada saat operasi dilakukan yaitu sejak sayatan dinding perut pertama sudah mengeluarkan darah hitam.

Penasehat Hukum II :

Berdasarkan keterangan dari Ahli dr. ROBBY WILLAR, Sp.A. bahwa pada saat plasenta keluar, pembuluh darah yang berhubungan dengan plasenta terbuka dan udara bisa masuk dari plasenta tetapi tidak berpengaruh terhadap bayi karena sebelum plasenta dikeluarkan bayi sudah dipotong/ bayi lebih dulu keluar kemudian tali pusat/ plasenta dipotong.
Berdasarkan keterangan dari Ahli JOHANNIS F. MALLO, SH. Sp.F. DFM. Bahwa infus dapat menyebabkan emboli udara tetapi kecil kemungkinan dan hal tersebut dapat terjadi karena efek venturi, kemudian kapan efek venturi terjadi yaitu korban meninggal dunia pukul 22.20 WITA, infus 20 tetes = 100 cc/ menit, operasi dilakukan pukul 20.55 WITA, anak lahir pukul 21.00 WITA dalam hal ini udara sudah masuk terlebih dulu kemudian dilaksanakan operasi, maka 30 menit sebelum pelaksanaan operasi sudah terdapat 35 cc udara.

Hakim : Cukup saudara Penuntut umum, apakah saudara Jaksa ingin mengajukan Replik?
JPU : Tidak bu Hakim. Kami tetap pada tuntutan kami.
Hakim : Bahwa alasan-alasan tuntutan Jaksa/ Penuntut Umum dapat dibenarkan karena dengan pertimbangan sebagai berikut :
Judex Facti salah menerapkan hukum, karena tidak mempertimbangkan dengan benar hal-hal yang relevan secara yuridis, Sebelum operasi dilakukan para terdakwa tidak meminta persetujuan pada pihak keluarga atas kemungkinan yang akan terjadi pada korban termasuk kematian.
Para Terdakwa sebelum melakukan operasi cito secsio sesaria terhadap korban dilakukan, tentang kemungkinan yang dapat terjadi terhadap diri korban dimana lalai dalam menangani korban pada saat masih hidup dan saat pelaksaanaan operasi yaitu adanya kesalahan dalam memberikandan memasang cairan infus yang menyebabkan kegagalan jantung.
bahwa tanda tangan atas nama SISKA MAKATEY alias JULIA FRANSISKA MAKATEY pada dokumen bukti adalah tanda tangan karangan/ “Spurious Signature“ .

Perbuatan Para Terdakwa mempunyai hubungan kausal dengan meninggalnya korban Siska Makatey sesuai Surat Keterangan dari Rumah Sakit Umum Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Manado No. 61/VER/IKF/FK/K/VI/2010, tanggal 26 April 2010;

Menimbang, bahwa sebelum menjatuhkan pidana akan mempertimbangkan hal-hal yang memberatkan dan yang meringankan ;

Hal-hal yang memberatkan :
Sifat dari perbuatan Para Terdakwa itu sendiri yang mengakibatkan korban meninggal dunia;


Hal-hal yang meringankan :
Para Terdakwa sedang menempuh pendidikan pada Program Pendidikan Dokter Spesialis Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado;
Para Terdakwa belum pernah dihukum

Memperhatikan Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009, Pasal 359 KUHP jo Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP , Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981, Undang-undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 dan Undang- Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004 dan perubahan kedua dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 serta peraturan perundang undangan lain yang bersangkutan.

MENGADILI
Menyatakan Para Terdakwa : dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Terdakwa I), dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Terdakwa II) dan dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Terdakwa III) telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana “perbuatan yang karena kealpaannya menyebabkan matinya orang lain”;
Menjatuhkan pidana terhadap Para Terdakwa : dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Terdakwa I), dr. HENDRY SIMANJUN

Hasil (Inggris) 1:

DILAN PSEUDO FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY ELEVEN MARETMALPRACTICE LAWSUITThe hearing Friday, June 12, 2015 Room Attendant The Tribunal Judge entered the courtroom, attendees were asked to stand. Once the judge is seated, the attendees are welcome to sit back. Chief Justice Moot Court judge: Faculty of Law, eleven Maret University that examine and prosecute criminal cases Number 365/Criminal/2012 Faculty of Law, University Eleven Maret, on behalf of dr Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani (defendant I), Dr. are Handry Simanjuntak (the defendant), and Dr. Hendy Siagian (Defendant), was opened and open to the public. (Tap the hammer three times). JPU: brother of the defendant, the welcome sign in the proceedings (the defendant in a State free and accompanied the ruling power and then sitting in a Chair that had been prepared). Judge: For brother Ipda Natasha Olga as a representative of the police are welcome to read out Event Pemeriksaannya File, is it ready? Police: Yes bu the judge. Police: the defendant, dr Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani (defendant I), Dr. are Handry Simanjuntak (the defendant), and Dr. Hendy Siagian (Defendant) on 10 April 2010, at 22: 00: 00. It is housed in the operating room of General Hospital Prof. Dr. R. D Kandouw Malalayang Manado city. The defendants have done the demise of the demise of the causing forgetfulness of others namely Siska Makatey. Committed the defendant in the following way:That the defendant as doctors carry out operations Cito Secsio Sesaria against Makatey, Siska victims the defendant was negligent in dealing with the victims at the time were still alive and the time of execution of the operation against the self sacrifices occur air emboli enter into the right heart Chambers that inhibit the blood went into the lungs so that the heart function failure occurred. Based on these investigations, found evidence of the following:1. A letter of pernyatan has been treated 2. The operating Report 3. The report's observation that labor Siska Makatey 4. Klinical Patway 5. the final Diagnosis 6. special measures agreement Letter 7. main Anamnesis Siska Makatey 8. midwifery Anamnesis Siska MakateyVisum et Repertum 9.Judge: Well next to the public prosecutor read out the charge please, is it ready?JPU: Yes bu the judge. JPU i: Upon news of the proceedings has been recited in the police, the public prosecutor demanded the party defendant:That at the time and place as the above, dr DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Defendant I) as the doctor who did the surgery assisted Dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Defendant II) and Dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant III) as an Assistant operator that help the course of operations. The defendant was a doctor at the hospital, Prof. Dr. r. d. Kandou Manado who did CITO SECSIO SESARIA operation against victims of SISKA MAKATEY. Before the operation was performed the defendants did not ask for approval on the family over the possibility that will occur in the victim's death. The victim who was in a weak State with severe disease status given high doses of anaesthetic in the absence of such supporting examination examination of the heart, chest x-rays and blood pressure, allergy victims.The Act of the Defendant as set forth and threatened criminal in Article 359 of the CRIMINAL CODE to Jis. Article 361 of the CRIMINAL CODE, article 55 paragraph (1) of the CRIMINAL CODE.That all of the defendants as the doctor in performing the surgery CITO SECSIO SESARIA against MAKATEY, SISKA victims of negligent in dealing with the victims at the time were still alive and when the pelaksaanaan operation that is an error in the memberikandan put up a fluid infusion, so air emboli enter into the right Chamber of the heart and lungs so that pulmonary function failure occurred, resulting in the failure of the function of the heart.The Act of the Defendant as set forth and threatened criminal in article 76 of the Act Number 29 of 2004 concerning the practice of medicine.JPU II: That turned out to be the victim's signature on a letter of approval and the approval of the Special Act of surgery and anesthesia submitted by Dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant) for the victims signed by different signatures with the victims who were in the Population Sign Card (ID CARD) and then Askes the card after examination by the Forensic Laboratory date of 09 June 2010 No. Lab. : 509/DTF/2011, made by each man to Drs. SAMIR, S.St. Mk., male ADHIS ARDANI, s. Amd and men MARENDRA YUDI l., SE., stating that the signatures on behalf of SISKA MAKATEY aka JULIA FRANCES MAKATEY on document evidence is the signature bouquet/"Spurious Signature".The Act of the Defendant as set forth and threatened criminal in section 263 subsection (1) of the CRIMINAL CODE Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the CRIMINAL CODE.It is based upon evidence of News of the proceedings from the police force, namely:1. A letter of pernyatan has been treated 2. The operating Report 3. The report's observation that labor Siska Makatey 4. Klinical Patway 5. the final Diagnosis 6. special measures agreement Letter 7. main Anamnesis Siska Makatey 8. midwifery Anamnesis Siska MakateyVisum et Repertum 9.Judge: sauda Judge: Prosecutor civil Enough. Subsequent to the legal counsel whether the brothers are ready to read the pleadings or pledoinya?The defendant's legal counsel: Yes bu the judge.Legal Advisor I:In fact, the infusion of the drug never converted to the air because of the disposible syringe for incoming air. Next from keputusn read the witnesses read and witness can witness in education that is the possibility that it could be is primarily in the operation of labor even in the rules it says that air can enter common in neurosurgical operations by positioning the patient half-sitting could happen at a time when he was leading the air can get in, in the section on obstetrics that can often occur not only in SECTIO CESARIA but also on curettage even in case reports to an intimate relationship where the husband wears oral It could happen to the incoming air. so the possibility of air entering based on visum result could have occurred from a few things of yesteryear, the next task in this case anesthesia has been completed because the patient/victim has opened the eyes and breathing spontaneously unless when patients before tidied all then dies then is still the duty and responsibility of anesthesia and obstetrics.Based on information from witnesses, Prof. Dr. NAJOAN NAN WAROUW, SP. OG. that the defendant I (one) said: the operation towards the patient/victim has been completed and at the time of surgery done i.e. Since the first abdominal wall incision already bleed black.Legal Advisor II:Based on information from Expert Dr. ROBBY WILLAR, Sp a. that at the time the placenta came out, the blood vessels that connected with the placenta is open and air can enter from the placenta but no effect on babies since before the placenta secreted the baby was cut in/out first then baby's umbilical cord/placenta was cut.Based on information from Expert JOHANNIS f. MALLO, sh. SP. f. DFM. That infusion can cause an air emboli but small possibility and it could happen because of the venturi effect, then when is the venturi effect to occur i.e. victim died at 22: 20: 00, an infusion of 20 drops = 100 cc/min, 7: 30 p.m. performed operations, the son born by 21: 00: in this case the air already entered first and then carried out the operations, then 30 minutes before the execution of the operation there were already 35 cc air.Judge: public prosecutor civil Enough, whether civil Attorney wanted to ask Replik?JPU: bu Not the judge. We stick to our demands.Judge: That the reasons for the demands of Attorney/Prosecutor be justified because with the following considerations: Judex Facti incorrectly applied the law, because it did not consider properly the relevant things legally, before surgery is performed the defendants did not ask for approval on the family over the possibility that will occur in the victim's death. The defendant's prior conduct operations secsio sesaria cito against victims do, about the possibility that can happen against self sacrifice where negligent in dealing with the victims at the time were still alive and when the pelaksaanaan operation that is an error in the memberikandan put up a fluid drip that causes heart failure.that the signature on behalf of the SISKA MAKATEY aka JULIA FRANCES MAKATEY on document evidence is the signature bouquet/"Spurious Signature".The deeds of the defendants have causal relationships with the death of the victim Makatey Siska according the certificate from General Hospital, Prof. Dr. r. d. Kandou Manado No. 61/VER/IKF/FK/K/VI/2010, dated April 26, 2010;Considering, that before dropping the criminal will consider aggravating things and relieve;Things that weigh:The nature of the defendant's own deeds that resulted in the victim's death;Things lighten up: The defendants are being educated on the Education Program Specialist University of Sam Ratulangi Manado;The defendants haven't been convictedPay attention to Act No. 48 of 2009, Article 359 of the CRIMINAL CODE jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to-1 of the CRIMINAL CODE, Act No. 8 of 1981, Act No. 29 of 2004 and Act No. 14 of 1985 as amended by Act No. 5 of 2004 and the second amendment by Act No. 3 of 2009 as well as the laws of other invitations are concerned.JUDGEDeclare the defendants: Dr. AYU SASIARY GODS PRAWANI (Defendant I), Dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Defendant II) and Dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant) has been proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing criminal acts "that caused the death of kealpaannya due to other people";Dropping a criminal against the defendants: dr DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Defendant I), Dr. HENDRY SIMANJUN

Hasil (Inggris) 2:

Dilan SEMU MARCH ELEVEN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW
OF THE CASE malpractice trial Friday, June 12th, 2015 Officers space the judges entered the courtroom, the audience was asked to stand. After the judge sits, the audience may be seated. Judge the Chief Justice: Moot Court Faculty of Law, University of March and adjudicates criminal case No. 365 / Criminal / 2012 Faculty of Law, University of March, on behalf of dr. Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani (the first defendant), dr. Handry Simanjuntak (Defendant II), and dr. Hendy Siagian (Defendant III), declared open and open to the public. (Tap hammer three times). prosecutor: Brother accused, allowed to enter the court room (defendant in a free state and accompanied by legal counsel and then sat in a chair that had been prepared). Judge: For Ipda sister Natasha Olga as the representative of the police are welcome to read the file Examination event, whether it is ready? Police: Yes Mrs. Hakim. Police: The defendants, dr. Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani (the first defendant), dr. Handry Simanjuntak (Defendant II), and dr. Hendy Siagian (Defendant III) on April 10, 2010, at 22.00 pm. The incident took place in the General Hospital Operating Rooms Prof. Dr. RD Kandouw Malalayang Manado. The defendant has committed negligence causing the death of the death of another person, namely Siska Makatey. These actions carried out by the defendant in the following way: That the defendant as a doctor carrying out operations against the victim Cito Secsio cesarean Makatey Siska, defendant negligent in handling the victim at the time was still alive and when implementation of the operation against the victim occurred air embolism that goes into the right ventricle of the heart into the blood inhibits the lungs - lungs, causing heart failure. Based on these investigations, evidence is found as follows: 1. Letter statement had been treated 2. Statements of Operations 3. Observation report Siska delivery Makatey 4. Klinical Patway 5. The final diagnosis 6. Letter of approval special measures 7. Siska main anamnesis Makatey 8. Siska obstetric history Makatey 9. Post mortem Judge: Well next to the Public Prosecutor please read the demands, whether it is ready? prosecutor: Yes bu judge. The prosecutor I: Based on the police investigation report which was read out earlier, the public prosecutor charged the defendant with: That at the time and where as mentioned above, dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (first defendant) as the doctor who performed the surgery assisted by dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Defendant II) and dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant III) as an assistant operator that helps the course of the operation. The defendants are doctors at the Hospital Prof. Dr. RD Kandou Manado CITO SECSIO cesarean surgery on victims SISKA MAKATEY. Before surgery the defendants did not ask for consent on the part of families on the possibilities that will happen to the victim, including death. Victim who was in a weakened state with severe disease status were given high doses of anesthesia without any investigations, such as cardiac examination, chest x-rays, allergies and blood pressure of the victim. The act of the defendant as provided for and punishable under Article 359 of the Criminal Code Jis. Article 361 of the Criminal Code, Article 55 paragraph (1) ke- 1 of the Criminal Code. That all the defendant as a physician in carrying out operations against the victim CITO SECSIO cesarean SISKA MAKATEY, negligent in dealing with the victim at the time was still alive and the time of implementation of the operation is an error in installing liquid memberikandan infusion, so that air embolism into the right chamber of the heart and lungs, causing lung failure, subsequently resulting in heart failure. The act of the defendant as provided for and punishable under Article 76 of Law Number 29 Year 2004 regarding Medical Practice. prosecutor II: That turned out to be the signature of victims who are in a special letter of consent and approval of surgery and anesthesia were submitted by dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant III) to be signed by the victim is different from the signature of the victims who were in the Identity Card (KTP) and the Health Insurance Card then after examination by the Forensic Laboratory NO.LAB dated June 9, 2010. : 509 / DTF / 2011, which is performed by each man Drs. SAMIR, S.St. Mk., Man Ardani ADHIS, S. Amd and men Marendra YUDI L., SE., Stated that the signature on behalf of SISKA MAKATEY alias JULIA fransiska MAKATEY proof documents are signature bouquet / "Spurious Signature". The act of the defendant as set and punishable under Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code to-1. This is based on evidence from interrogations of Police, namely: 1. Letter statement had been treated 2. Statements of Operations 3. Observation report Siska delivery Makatey 4. Klinical Patway 5. The final diagnosis 6. Letter of approval special measures 7. Siska main anamnesis Makatey 8. Siska obstetric history Makatey 9. Post mortem Judge: sauda Judge: Enough brother Attorney. Furthermore, the Legal Counsel if you are ready to read a defense or defense plea? Defendant Counsellor: Yes bu judge. Legal Advisor I: In the reality of drug delivery infusion never get in the air because of a disposable syringe for air intake. Furthermore, from keputusn who read the witness and the witness can read in the education of witnesses, namely the possibility that it could be is primarily in the operation of labor even in the rules to say that air could enter common in neurosurgical operation with a half-sitting position of the patient can occur at the time he was leading the air can enter, in the obstetrics that can often occur not only in SECTIO Cesaria but also on curettage even in the case report is to intercourse in which the husband wearing it can happen oral incoming air. so the possibility of air entering based on the results of the post mortem could happen on some of these things, the next task of anesthesia in this regard has been completed because the patient / victim had opened his eyes and breathe spontaneously unless the current patients before dirapihkan all later died it still is the duty and responsibility from anesthesia and obstetrics. Based on information from witnesses Prof. Dr. NAN NAJOAN Warouw, Sp.OG. that Defendant I (one) said: surgery on the patient / victim has been completed and when the operation is performed, namely since the first abdominal wall incisions already bleeds black. Legal Advisor II: Based on information from expert dr. ROBBY WILLAR, Sp.A. that when the placenta comes out, the blood vessels associated with the placenta is open and air can enter from the placenta but did not affect the baby because before the placenta is delivered babies have been cut / baby first comes out later cord / placenta is cut. Based on information from experts Johannis F. Mallo, SH. Sp.F. DFM. That infusion can cause air embolism but less likely, and it can occur due to the venturi effect, then when the venturi effect occurs that the victim died at 22:20 pm, a drip 20 drops = 100 cc / minute, the operation is performed at 20:55 pm, the child was born at 21:00 WITA in this case the air had entered first and then carried out the operation, then 30 minutes prior to the implementation of operations already contained 35 cc of air. Judge: Enough brother prosecutor, whether you want to file a Reply Attorney? prosecutor: No bu Judge. We remain on our demands. Judge: That the reasons for the demands of Attorney / Public Prosecutor can be justified by the following considerations: Judex facti misapplied the law, because it does not properly consider relevant matters legally, Before the operation carried out by the defendant does not seek approval at a family party on the possibility that will happen to the victim, including death. The defendant before cito secsio cesarean surgery done to victims, about the possibilities that can occur against the victim where the victim is negligent in handling while still alive and the time of implementation of the operation that is the errors in installing memberikandan intravenous fluid that causes heart failure. that the signature on behalf of SISKA MAKATEY alias JULIA fransiska MAKATEY proof documents are signature bouquet / "Spurious Signature". The act of the defendant have a causal relationship with the death of the victim Siska Makatey corresponding Certificate of General Hospital Prof. Dr. RD Kandou Manado No. 61 / VER / IKF / FK / K / VI / 2010, dated April 26, 2010; Considering that, before dropping the criminal would consider the aggravating and mitigating; Things are aggravating: The nature of the act itself Defendants resulting in death of the victim; Things that ease: The defendant was educated at the Medical Education Program Specialist Sam Ratulangi University in Manado; The defendant has not been convicted Noting Act No. 48 of 2009, Article 359 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) to-1 of the Criminal Code, Act No. 8 of 1981, Law No. 29 of 2004 and Law No. 14 of 1985 as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and the second amendment to Law No. 3 of 2009 as well as other laws and regulations concerned. PASSING Stating Defendants: dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Defendant I), dr. HENDRY SIMANJUNTAK (Defendant II) and dr. HENDY SIAGIAN (Defendant III) has been proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the crime of "acts due to negligence causes the death of another person"; Dropping crime against Defendants: dr. DEWA AYU SASIARY PRAWANI (Defendant I), dr. HENDRY SIMANJUN

Hasil (Inggris) 3:

帝兰色目fakultas是sebelas大学市场
事malpraktek


死党星期，12月2015
petugas禳
理事会哈基姆memasuki禳死党，hadirin diminta，站。她坐了坐，hadirin dipersilahkan回来。

哈基姆是哈金：法模拟法庭学院，sebelas Maret大学杨也mengadili pidana号丹事365 /犯罪/ 2012法学院，sebelas市场大学，博士在马德瓦香鱼sasiary prawani（terdakwa我），simanjuntak亨得利博士（terdakwa亨迪西雅坚II），丹博士（terdakwa III），除dibuka丹的称赞，umum。（ketuk帕卢3卡利）。
JPU：该terdakwa，dipersilahkan进来，该persidangan（terdakwa仍就在丹didampingi kuasa hukumnya然后坐底就是阳，disiapkan）。
Hakim：娜塔莎奥尔加，他们代表selaku IPDA达日在kepolisian dipersilahkan membacakan Berkas阿卡拉pemeriksaannya，也该么？
波利西：哎呀卜哈基姆。
波利西：对terdakwa，Dr.德瓦香鱼sasiary prawani（terdakwa我），simanjuntak亨得利博士（terdakwa亨迪西雅坚II），丹博士（terdakwa III）在抵达10四月2010，在这样的22用。kejadian缝制，bertempat堤软肝operasi里了umum教授R. D kandouw malalayang亚鸦。terdakwa缝制，为kealpaan，不matinya matinya猩猩躺就是makatey Siska。
在terdakwa旁，卡拉作为缝制，berikut：
，terdakwa，医生在operasi CITO secsio sesaria，Siska makatey祭，在terdakwa Lalai menangani和在应用在应用了丹pelaksanaan operasi向自己和栓子乌达拉杨进克也在乐jantung杨menghambat血进卡南柯帕鲁河-帕鲁河，也kegagalan功能jantung。
berdasarkan penyelidikan缝制，迪temukan bukti为berikut：
1。在苏拉特pernyatan dirawat
2。laporan operasi
3。laporan observasi persalinan Siska makatey
4。而且klinical
5。这6 diagnosa
。这种
苏拉特persetujuan举祭7。病历公司Siska makatey
8。记忆kebidanan Siska makatey
9。VISUM等repertum
Hakim：行以后，杰克沙发扬umum silahkan membacakan tuntutannya，也该么？
JPU：哎呀卜哈基姆。我
JPU：berdasarkan社阿卡拉身kepolisian杨，听塔底，在发扬umum jaksa menuntut terdakwa用：
在丹地，是sebagaimana缝制迪ATAS，博士德瓦香鱼sasiary prawani（terdakwa我），医生为operasi dibantu杨亨得利博士simanjuntak（terdakwa II）丹博士亨迪西雅坚（terdakwa III），asisten算子杨新例jalannya operasi。对terdakwa医生，病人是在教授R. D. kandou万鸦老杨行operasi CITO secsio sesaria，Siska makatey祭。在operasi在terdakwa旁不求persetujuan在对方keluarga ATAS kemungkinan杨必也在祭的主。和阳本在的时候，penyakit ITU仍在anastesi剂量高地位的沉重没有adanya身penunjang如身jantung，FOTO伦琴达达，alergi丹tekanan血祭。
行为对terdakwa sebagaimana diatur丹diancam pidana在pasal 359 kuhp JIS。pasal 361 kuhp，pasal 55这个（1）克1 kuhp
。我们都在为terdakwa医生在operasi CITO secsio sesaria，Siska makatey祭，祭仍在应用在menangani Lalai活丹种子pelaksaanaan operasi就是在adanya的memberikandan memasang cairan浸剂，以致栓子乌达拉进克，乐卡南jantung丹贮金大冒险贮金大冒险，也kegagalan功能贮金大冒险，再者，mengakibatkan kegagalan功能jantung行为。
对位terdakwa sebagaimana diatur丹diancam pidana在pasal 76 undang undang号码2004到29年
Praktik kedokteran。
JPU II：他们是在
Tanda和杨在里面苏拉特persetujuan这种举祭persetujuan pembedahan丹丹杨博士在anestesi交亨迪西雅坚（terdakwa III），ditandatangani欧勒和缝制和入方式的不同，在和杨在Tanda里面名片Tanda的日子（KTP）丹名片问，就在身在公司forensik抵达09月2010 no.lab。：509 / DTF / 2011，阳事，各人最后一萨米尔博士，s.st。可，最后一ardani adhis，S.AMD丹最后一marendra Yudi L.，SE。，是在心上告诉Tanda Siska makatey别名朱丽亚fransiska makatey在dokumen bukti是坦达在karangan /“假签名”。

行为对terdakwa sebagaimana diatur丹diancam pidana pasal也在263（1）kuhp乔。pasal 55节经文（1）kuhp
种。哈尔在INI didasarkan bukti达日社阿卡拉身从kepolisian就是：
1。在苏拉特pernyatan dirawat
2。laporan operasi
3。laporan observasi persalinan Siska makatey
4。而且klinical
5。这6 diagnosa
。这种
苏拉特persetujuan举祭7。病历公司Siska makatey
8。记忆kebidanan Siska makatey
9。VISUM等repertum
Hakim：sauda
Hakim：弟兄杰克沙了。再者，你也该penasehat么们，membacakan pembelaan或pledoinya？
terdakwa penasehat是：在线卜哈基姆。
penasehat是我：在
如pemberian公司达日滴不进乌达拉因为不死达日suntik一次性，进乌达拉。再者，从keputusn阳人巴卡丹人，在信息教育的人就是kemungkinan杨比萨也要operasi是在persalinan其实在aturan说，乌达拉比萨那份也在operasi bedah Saraf，posisi pasien半坐在比萨也应用直径terkemuka ITU乌达拉比萨进来，在一份kebidanan杨比萨也不是我在科也在kuretase Cesaria却连在laporan kasus就是，hubungan内膜dimana细，口服ITU比萨也进乌达拉。所以kemungkinan乌达拉杨进berdasarkan从VISUM比萨我也从几个哈尔Tadi，再者，tugas anestesi哈尔，因为pasien在INI selesai /祭在玛塔丹bernapas原因了kecuali吉卡SAAT pasien未有dirapihkan都有了，就这是tugas丹就从刚出生的anestesi丹kebidanan。
berdasarkan keterangan达日人教授博士najoan南warouw，sp.og。这是我terdakwa（一）的时候：operasi向pasien /祭，selesai dilaksanakan丹在本operasi sayatan佩鲁特第一天定的事就是从你的血潭。

penasehat这二：

berdasarkan keterangan达日阿利博士罗比威拉德，sp.a.是串联，在plasenta，pembuluh血阳berhubungan，plasenta称赞丹乌达拉比萨进达日plasenta只是不berpengaruh，八一因为plasenta dikeluarkan在八一也dipotong /八一比堵路，然后该中心/ plasenta dipotong。
berdasarkan keterangan达日阿利约翰F.马洛，嘘sp.f. DFM。是滴，不只是小栓子乌达拉kemungkinan丹海，也因为efek缝制，文氏管，然后什么时候efek文丘里也就是世界和有这样22.20滴用，20个臭皮匠= 100 CC /的优点，在20.55 operasi这样用，这样用在21是从哈尔INI乌达拉不但堵路，dilaksanakan operasi进来了，那30人也有优点pelaksanaan operasi 35 CC乌达拉。

Hakim：弟兄们发扬了umum，杰克沙想mengajukan replik么？
JPU：不卜哈基姆。我们就在tuntutan卡米。
Hakim：阿拉善阿拉善是tuntutan杰克沙/发扬umum，dibenarkan林嘉欣，pertimbangan为berikut：我该menerapkan是
承审员，因为，不mempertimbangkan的哈尔哈尔阳上yuridis相关，在operasi在terdakwa旁不求persetujuan在对方keluarga ATAS kemungkinan杨必也在祭的主。
对位terdakwa未作operasi CITO secsio sesaria，祭的事，关于kemungkinan杨，也对自己和dimana Lalai menangani祭仍在应用，在应用pelaksaanaan丹operasi就是在adanya的memberikandan memasang cairan浸剂阳不kegagalan jantung。是在心上
Tanda Siska makatey别名朱丽亚fransiska makatey在dokumen bukti是坦达在karangan /“假签名”。

作为terdakwa旁有hubungan kausal祭，meninggalnya Siska makatey的苏拉特keterangan达日大了umum教授R. D. kandou万鸦老61号/版本/和/ FK / K / VI / 2010，四月2010抵达26；

menimbang，是在menjatuhkan pidana要mempertimbangkan哈尔哈尔杨memberatkan丹阳有助於

；哈尔哈尔杨memberatkan：
包装作为自己的terdakwa ITU达日旁杨mengakibatkan和有世界；


哈尔哈尔阳有助於：
对位terdakwa在menempuh教育在大学教育spesialis程序医生山姆ratulangi万鸦老；
对位terdakwa不死不dihukum

memperhatikan undang undang号码48年2009，359 pasal kuhp乔pasal这个（1）55种kuhp，undang undang号码8年1981，29年undang undang号2004丹undang - undang号码14年了，1985 sebagaimana diubah undang undang号5年2004个undang undang号通知丹，3岁的2009和新perundang undangan躺杨bersangkutan。

mengadili
告诉准terdakwa：博士德瓦香鱼sasiary prawani（terdakwa我），博士亨得利simanjuntak（terdakwa西雅坚（II）丹博士亨迪terdakwa III），terbukti为SAH丹meyakinkan若为行动pidana”行为kealpaannya杨因为不matinya猩猩躺”；
menjatuhkan pidana向准terdakwa：博士德瓦香鱼sasiary prawani（terdakwa我），亨得利博士simanjun