Altered medical treatment

Recently Bapak S, one of my relatives, went to see Dr. SS, a urologist in Bandung, for abdominal pain. After he had been checked by USG etc., Dr. SS said that the former would be treated by laser to remove kidney stones, and so the patient should be hospitalized for about four days. The patient's daughter agreed and signed an authority.

But how strange, that after the treatment there was an incision mark on the left region of stomach, which distressed the patient and family members.

Didn't Dr. SS promise to do the operation by laser shot, which does not require an incision, so there should be no wound at all. After having been hospitalized for eight days (not four days as planned) Bapak S was allowed to go home. Soon after he had trouble urinating, suffered from a fever and became unconscious.

The family contacted Dr. SS in Advent hospital, only to find that he was going abroad. So the patient was sent to another doctor and hospitalized at Dustira hospital in Cimahi. Bapak S passed away five days later.

Several days after the burial, the bereaved family grudgingly went to Advent hospital for clarification by looking at patient medical records. It proved to be difficult and uncertain.

Didn't the doctor realize that an intentional injury to someone is a crime, as stipulated in articles 351 and 355 of the Criminal Code?

When, in the operation room there was unexpected problem and it was a must to alter the method of operation, why didn't the doctor ask prior permission from the patient's family?

Why was it difficult for the family to obtain access to the deceased's medical records? Isn't it a matter of principle for the family to examine the medical records?

H.M. HADI S.

Cimahi, West Java