Sejahtera Ciracas Clinic Denies Rejecting BPJS Patient, Confirms Child Received Full Treatment
The management of PT Karunia Sejahtera Cemerlang, which oversees Klinik Sejahtera Ciracas, has formally submitted a Right of Reply, Right of Correction, and Objection through its legal team from RAP Law Firm regarding a viral news report about a dispute between a toddler’s parents and healthcare workers in East Jakarta. The clinic firmly stated it never refused medical treatment and provided complete healthcare to the child using the BPJS Kesehatan scheme.
Afif Rachmat Hidayat, a member of the clinic’s legal team, stated that this clarification is a constitutional right under the Press Law and the Journalistic Code of Ethics, aimed at correcting one-sided information that damaged their client’s reputation. He emphasised that while the clinic respects press freedom, reporting must be responsible, prioritising accuracy, balance, and verification.
Based on internal documents and CCTV footage, the legal team detailed the chronology of the incident on 25 June 2026. The injured child arrived with both parents and was immediately accepted by staff according to standard operating procedures. The patient was promptly directed to the treatment room, where a nurse and doctor conducted an initial examination and provided first aid. An issue arose at the registration counter when the JKN system verified that the patient’s registered primary care facility was the Ciracas Community Health Centre, not the clinic. The legal team explained that staff were obliged to explain the BPJS regulations, which require patients to use their registered facility except in specific emergency conditions, and that this was purely an administrative matter, not a refusal of care. The clinic optimised its system to ensure the patient could still use BPJS, and the child received full treatment and medication covered by the scheme.
Addressing the incident involving a mobile phone, the legal team stated that the situation became tense because the parent refused to accept the procedural explanation and began aggressively filming staff members’ faces. They noted that unauthorised recording in clinical areas is prohibited by internal rules and various laws, including the Medical Practice Law and the ITE Law. Staff had persuasively asked the parent to stop recording, but when the phone was forced close to a healthcare worker’s face, the worker made a reflexive movement to block the camera, causing the phone to fall. The legal team asserted there was no intentional damage, only a spontaneous reaction to a privacy violation.