UPSC Mains 2026 GS4 Q7: model answer
Lata, a mother of two children, was admitted to a hospital for acute abdominal pain. Her sister-in-law, Sujatha, accompanied her. Dr. Mansi examined Lata and recommended a diagnostic laparoscopy. Lata's consent was taken to conduct the medical procedure under general anesthesia. During the laparoscopy, Dr. Mansi's team discovered a tumor in Lata's uterus. A closer examination suggested that the tumor could be malignant. One option before Dr. Mansi was to extract a sample for biopsy. In that case, if the tumor was malignant, Lata would have to undergo another surgery for removal of the uterus. An alternative was to remove the uterus immediately. Dr. Mansi had to take a quick decision. As Lata was under general anesthesia, Dr. Mansi explained the situation to Sujatha. Sujatha agreed with Dr. Mansi's recommendations for a hysterectomy, wherein Lata's uterus would be removed to avoid the risk and pain of undergoing another surgery. Dr. Mansi removed Lata's uterus after receiving Sujatha's consent in writing. Lata was informed of this the next day. She was very upset and felt betrayed as she had not consented to the removal of her uterus. Lata complained to the police who tried to convince her that Dr. Mansi had acted with good intention to help a patient. Sujatha was of the same opinion, however Lata was not convinced and decided to approach the court.
(a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in this case.
(b) Discuss the moral conduct of the doctor in this situation.
What the question wants
(a) Identify ethical issues: consent, autonomy, bodily integrity, beneficence, role of family, institutional response. (b) Judge the doctor's conduct: good intent but wrong process.
How to structure it
Stakeholders first. (a) Issues in a list. (b) Conduct: what was right, what was wrong, what she should have done. Close with the principle.
- 1Part (a): Issues in a list
- 2Part (b): Conduct: what was right, what was wrong, what she should have done
Model answer
Stakeholders: Lata (patient), Dr. Mansi, Sujatha, the hospital, the police.
(a) Ethical issues
- Autonomy and bodily integrity: removing a woman's uterus is an irreversible, life-changing act. Only she could consent to it.
- Scope of consent: Lata agreed to a diagnostic laparoscopy, not a hysterectomy. The Supreme Court in Samira Kohli (2008) held that consent for one procedure cannot be stretched to another unless it is a life-saving emergency.
- Surrogate consent: a sister-in-law is not a legal guardian of a competent adult. Her written consent had no ethical or legal force.
- Beneficence vs paternalism: sparing a second surgery was well-meant but decided for Lata, not with her.
- Gender: decisions about women's reproductive bodies are often taken by families; the case reflects that pattern.
- Institutional failure: the police tried to talk her out of a complaint instead of recording it.
(b) Moral conduct of the doctor
- Right: she acted in good faith, consulted a relative and recorded consent in writing.
- Wrong: there was no emergency. The tumour was only suspected malignant and no biopsy confirmed it. Waiting for Lata to wake up and decide was possible.
- Her choice put convenience and her own judgement above the patient's right to decide, and may even have removed an organ unnecessarily.
What she should have done: take a biopsy, close, explain the findings to Lata, and let her choose between options. Hospitals should take extended consent before procedures that may reveal such findings.
Good intention does not cure lack of consent. Medical ethics rests on respecting the person, not only treating the disease.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
autonomy bodily integrity Samira Kohli surrogate consent paternalism extended consent
Where most answers lose marks
- Judging the doctor only by intent
- Treating Sujatha's consent as valid
- Forgetting the police's role
Fresh examples from current affairs
NMC withdraws MSMER-2023: medical colleges lose the fixed penalty rulebook, annual disclosure stays
The National Medical Commission (NMC) has de-notified the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (MSMER-2023) by a notification dated 14 October 2026, published in the Gazette on 16 October. Its fixed penalties, including seat cuts and fines of up to ₹5 lakh for false records, go with it. The Annual Disclosure Report stays.
UPSC angle: Prelims: NMC Act 2019, autonomous boards, Concurrent List Entry 25. · Mains GS-II: regulation of medical education.
19 Oct 2026
NPPA caps trade margins on 137 anti-cancer drugs: prices to fall up to 70% from 9 November
On 17 October 2026 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) capped trade margins on 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs at 30%, using its special public-interest power under Paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013. The Government expects the retail price of these medicines to fall by up to 70%, and the new prices apply from 9 November 2026. The list includes costly immunotherapy drugs such as pembrolizumab and durvalumab.
UPSC angle: Prelims: NPPA, DPCO 2013 Para 19, trade margin, scheduled vs non-scheduled drugs. · Mains GS-II: affordable medicines and health equity.
18 Oct 2026
FSSAI draft: no added sucrose or fructose in foods for infants up to six months
On 17 October 2026 FSSAI explained a draft rule that would stop companies from adding sucrose (table sugar) or fructose (fruit sugar) to any product meant for babies up to six months old. The draft amends the Foods for Infant Nutrition Regulations, 2020, was published in the Gazette on 16 October, and is open for public comments for 60 days. The idea is simple: in the first six months a baby needs the right nutrients, not an early taste for sugar.
UPSC angle: Prelims: FSSAI, FSS Act 2006, infant nutrition regulations, IMS Act 1992. · Mains GS-II: child nutrition, preventive health and food regulation.
17 Oct 2026
FSSAI proposes residue limits for acetamiprid and imidacloprid in tea
On 17 October 2026 FSSAI explained draft limits for two insecticides in tea: 20 ppm for acetamiprid and 50 ppm for imidacloprid. The draft, published in the Gazette on 16 October, amends the rules on contaminants, toxins and residues. India’s proposed acetamiprid limit is lower than Japan’s 30 ppm and the USA’s 50 ppm.
UPSC angle: Prelims: MRL, neonicotinoids, Insecticides Act 1968, FSS Act 2006. · Mains GS-III: pesticide regulation and food safety.
17 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC question paper: https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/QP-CSM-26-010926-GENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-IV.pdf The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.