The law on medical practice explains the rights of patients, namely, getting a complete explanation from their doctor, asking for opinions from other doctors, getting services according to medical needs, refusing medical action, getting the contents of medical records, which are in accordance with articles 47 and 52 of the law. Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practice. Identification of the problem in this study is how the element of a doctor in medical action can be categorized as an element of unlawful acts and the consequences of medical records that are not one of the evidence according to the Supreme Court's decision Number 3566 K/Pdt/2016 and based on Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning consumer protection in conjunction with Law No. 29 of 2004 concerning medical practice and legal remedies for patients as consumers of health services. The research method in compiling this thesis, the researcher used normative-empirical juridical type, the data used were secondary data, namely interviews and primary data, namely The Health Law and the Medical Practice Law are complementary, document study data collection techniques and qualitative juridical data analysis. In this case the loss of not getting the contents of the medical record resulted in ignorance of the important information. The doctor did an act against the law did not give any informed consent toward patient. There is a res ipsa luquitor that should be used but not execute.