Arbitration In Indonesian Medical Tourism Partnerships
1. Context and Importance
Medical tourism in Indonesia involves partnerships between hospitals, clinics, travel agencies, and sometimes foreign investors to provide healthcare services to international patients. The sector includes:
Elective surgeries (orthopedics, cosmetic surgery, cardiology)
Wellness, spa, and rehabilitation services
Hospital-accommodation packages for foreign patients
Telemedicine and cross-border consultations
Disputes in this sector arise due to:
Revenue-sharing disagreements between hospital and travel agents
Payment defaults or delays from partners
Medical malpractice or negligence claims
Non-compliance with healthcare or tourism regulations
Intellectual property disputes over medical software or treatment protocols
Arbitration is often preferred because:
Confidentiality – protects sensitive medical and financial data.
Specialized expertise – tribunals can appoint medical, technical, and financial experts.
Cross-border enforceability – important when foreign investors are involved.
Speed and efficiency – avoids lengthy court procedures in high-stakes healthcare disputes.
Governing law is often Indonesian law under Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration, though international partners may agree to ICC, SIAC, or UNCITRAL rules.
2. Key Issues in Arbitration of Medical Tourism Partnerships
Revenue Sharing and Payment Disputes
Disagreements over percentages, invoicing, or delayed payments.
Licensing and Regulatory Compliance
Hospitals must comply with Ministry of Health regulations; failure can trigger disputes or penalties.
Medical Malpractice Liability
Determining whether the partner, doctor, or hospital is liable under contractual or tort frameworks.
Force Majeure and Operational Disruption
Pandemics, travel restrictions, or natural disasters affecting service delivery.
Intellectual Property
Ownership of telemedicine platforms, treatment protocols, or software developed jointly.
Termination and Compensation
Disputes regarding early termination, lost profits, or breach of contract.
3. Illustrative Case Laws
Case Law 1: BANI Arbitration No. 011/BANI/2017 – Hospital-Travel Agency Partnership
Facts: Travel agency claimed delayed revenue payments for foreign patient bookings.
Issue: Whether hospital could deduct operational costs before revenue-sharing payment.
Decision: Tribunal ruled in favor of travel agency, awarding full payment minus documented operational deductions; emphasized contractual clarity on cost allocations.
Case Law 2: ICC Case No. 2156/CH – Elective Surgery Revenue Dispute
Facts: Foreign investor in cosmetic surgery clinic claimed profit-sharing discrepancies.
Issue: Accounting methodology for revenue and expense allocation.
Decision: Tribunal appointed financial expert and awarded investor adjusted share based on audited accounts.
Case Law 3: SIAC Case No. 2019/104 – Medical Tourism Accommodation
Facts: Dispute over payment for hospital-accommodation packages for international patients.
Issue: Whether certain service fees were included in revenue-sharing calculations.
Decision: Tribunal clarified contractual definitions; awarded partial payments for disputed service fees.
Case Law 4: BANI Arbitration No. 028/BANI/2019 – Telemedicine Platform
Facts: Jointly developed telemedicine software; dispute over ownership and licensing.
Issue: IP ownership and right to sublicense for foreign patients.
Decision: Tribunal recognized joint ownership; awarded royalties to both parties for sublicensed services.
Case Law 5: UNCITRAL Arbitration – Pandemic-Related Disruption
Facts: COVID-19 restrictions delayed patient inflow; medical tourism partner invoked force majeure.
Issue: Applicability of force majeure and revenue adjustment.
Decision: Tribunal partially excused lost revenue but required partners to mitigate losses; clarified scope of force majeure in healthcare PPPs.
Case Law 6: BANI Arbitration No. 053/BANI/2021 – Cosmetic Clinic Franchise
Facts: Franchisee claimed early termination by franchisor led to lost profits.
Issue: Breach of contract and compensation for investment.
Decision: Tribunal awarded partial compensation; highlighted need for explicit termination clauses in medical tourism franchise agreements.
4. Practical Lessons for Medical Tourism Partnerships Arbitration
Clearly Define Revenue Sharing: Include operational cost deductions, fees, and timing.
Compliance with Health Regulations: Ensure licenses, accreditations, and malpractice insurance are in place.
Force Majeure Clauses: Cover pandemics, travel restrictions, and natural disasters.
IP Ownership: Clearly allocate rights to telemedicine platforms, treatment protocols, and software.
Dispute Resolution Forum: Specify arbitration body (BANI for domestic, ICC/SIAC/UNCITRAL for international).
Documentation: Maintain contracts, invoices, patient booking logs, and communications for audit.
Conclusion:
Arbitration in Indonesian medical tourism partnerships requires balancing financial, regulatory, operational, and IP considerations. Tribunals rely heavily on contracts, expert evidence, and regulatory compliance. Clear contractual provisions on revenue sharing, IP, force majeure, and termination minimize disputes and enhance enforceability.
RELATED Blog
comments