Case

The complaint by the plaintiff stated that Preeyanan committed a defamation by publication against the plaintiff and imported false information to the computer system. The intention was to defame the reputation of the plaintiff and to cause them to be despised and hated by the people.

 

On the 27 September 2016, Preeyanan posted a status on her facebook account which was set public

“How unfair of the Medical Council?

After 14 years of established Thai Medical Error Network (TMEN), there are complaints received from patients who were treated from either public and private hospitals. However, after the case was filed to the Medical Council, most of them found;

1. Medical Council see almost all of the pateint's complaints 'no ground'

2. The procedures took 3-10 years long. There was even a case which took 13 years to investigate and no result yet.

3. There was an intention to delay the process until the civil claim 1-year prescription past. 

4. There was an attempt to lobby the Royal Thai Police, Lawyer Council of Thailand, Physicians etc. to consult the Medical Council before proceedings, which mostly return with opinion ‘no ground’.

5. The President of the Medical Council led the medical team to testify against the patients in courts.

6. Set up a team of doctors who also held law degrees to fight a lawsuit against the patients.

7. Training an instruction on ‘How to write a defensive medical record’.

8. Training expert witnesses on how to testify to fight patients.

9. There was an attempt to remove medical services from Consumer Procedure Act 2008 to prevent patients benefits from trial without fee.

10. Notify the physicians who seemed to be inspected to send the medical records to the lawyer team to reexamine. Oftentimes, they were edited and important parts disappeared.

11. Oppose the draft of the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Medical Services in every way. Even though, the Act aims to reduce conflicts between physicians and patients. The reason of disagreements were because it will cause loss for private hospitals in sales amount of insurance sold to their physicians. Plus, it will be more difficult to persuade the doctor from public hospitals to move to work in private hospitals.

12. There was once a case where the owner of the private hospital sat as chairman of the investigation team investigating his own hospital.

13. There are cases indicated by the Medical Council 'no ground' but, the court decided the patient to win. Usually, after the announcement of the verdict, the Medical Council instigated protest by physicians to oppose the verdict. Moreover, the Director of Medical Council sometimes even came out that the verdict was made without knowledge and not complied with the Laws. This creates social conflict. Notwithstanding the fact that both parties have the equal opportunity to present their evidences to the court. All cases the medical council has never been disadventaged. 

14. Many cases that the Medical Council indentified as 'no ground' but later the Administrative Court revoked such resolutions as unjust"

 

The plaintiff claimed that Preeyanan intend to present to the public that the Medical Council is a bad professional association, lacks of ethics and good morals in investigation process which are absolutely not true. What Preeyanan said and present were false and is an importation of false or forge computer data which caused damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the court to punish her under the Penal Code Section 328 and the Computer Act, Section 14.