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 recommendation 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.

Ethics
Ethics: Case Study
2026
20 Marks

This case highlights the tension between paternalistic beneficence and patient autonomy in medical ethics, particularly regarding informed consent and the definition of a medical emergency.

Key Stakeholders in the Medical-Ethical Decision-Making Process

Key Stakeholders in the Medical-Ethical Decision-Making Process

a) Ethical issues involved in this case

  • Violation of Patient Autonomy: The primary issue is the breach of Lata's right to self-determination over her body. Informed consent is procedure-specific; consent for a diagnostic laparoscopy does not automatically authorize a major organ removal.

  • Beneficence vs. Autonomy: Dr. Mansi acted on the principle of Beneficence (doing good by avoiding a second surgery). However, this conflicted with Lata's Autonomy, which is the cornerstone of modern medical ethics.

  • Informed Consent vs. Proxy Consent: While Sujatha provided consent, Indian law (specifically Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, 2008) establishes that proxy consent by a relative is only valid if the patient is incapacitated and the procedure is life-saving. A suspected malignancy is not an immediate life-threatening emergency justifying the bypass of primary consent.

  • Paternalism in Medicine: The doctor’s "doctor knows best" attitude led to a permanent, irreversible procedure (hysterectomy) without the patient's psychological preparation or consent.

  • Integrity and Trust: The breach of trust between the patient and the medical profession, where the patient feels "betrayed" despite the doctor's "good intentions."

b) Moral conduct of the doctor in this situation

Dr. Mansi's conduct must be evaluated through different ethical lenses:

  • Deontological Perspective (Duty-based): Under the NMC Code of Ethics 2026, a doctor has a duty to obtain documented, procedure-specific informed consent. Dr. Mansi failed this duty. By exceeding the scope of the agreed-upon surgery, she violated the Categorical Imperative of treating the patient as an end in herself, not as a means to medical efficiency.

  • Utilitarian Perspective (Consequentialist): The doctor likely aimed for the "greatest good" by saving Lata from the cost, pain, and anesthesia risks of a second surgery. However, the negative utility (psychological trauma, loss of reproductive organs, and legal repercussions) far outweighs the convenience of a single surgery.

  • Legal and Professional Conduct: As per the Samira Kohli judgment, a surgeon cannot perform an additional procedure just because it is beneficial, unless it is necessary to save life or prevent serious health injury. Since the tumor was only "suspected" to be malignant, the correct moral and legal path was to perform the biopsy, wake the patient, and discuss the results.

  • Conclusion on Conduct: While Dr. Mansi acted with Benevolence (kindness), her conduct lacked Medical Professionalism. She ignored the Doctrine of Informed Consent, making her liable for medical negligence despite her lack of "malice."

True medical ethics requires that the patient remains the master of their own body. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, a doctor's duty is not just to heal the body, but to respect the individual's dignity and choice, for "the right to health includes the right to informed choice."

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

Evaluate this PYQ now

Write your answer & evaluate in just 60 seconds

500+ students evaluated

Evaluate Now

Model Answers from

See All Answers

In just 60 sec

Evaluate your handwritten answer

Get feedback with model answer

Evaluate Now

Model Answers by Papers

Year-Wise Model Answer

Crack UPSC with your
Personal AI Mentor

An AI-powered ecosystem to learn, practice, and evaluate with discipline

SuperKalam
SuperKalam is your personal mentor for UPSC preparation, guiding you at every step of the exam journey.

Download the App

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
Follow us

ⓒ Snapstack Technologies Private Limited