General Studies 2024 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Suggest

Q10

Sneha is a Senior Manager working for a big reputed hospital chain in a mid-sized city. She has been made in-charge of the new super speciality center that the hospital is building with state-of-the art equipment and world class medical facilities. The building has been reconstructed and she is starting the process of procurement for various equipment and machines. As the head of the committee responsible for procurement, she has invited bids from all the interested reputed vendors dealing in medical equipment. She notices that her brother, who is a well-known supplier in this domain, has also sent his expression of interest. Since the hospital is privately owned, it is not mandatory for her to select only the lower bidder. Also, she is aware that her brother's company has been facing some financial difficulties and a big supply order will help him recover. At the same time, allocating the contract to her brother might bring charges of favouritism against her and tarnish her image. The hospital management trusts her fully and would support any decision of hers. (a) What should be Sneha's course of action? (b) How would she justify what she chooses to do? (c) In this case, how is medical ethics compromised with vested personal interest? (Answer in 250 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

स्नेहा एक वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक है जो एक मध्यम आकार वाले शहर में एक बड़ी प्रतिष्ठित अस्पताल श्रृंखला के लिए काम करती है। उन्हें एक नए सुपर स्पेशियलिटी सेंटर का प्रभारी बनाया गया है जिसे अस्पताल अत्याधुनिक उपकरणों और विश्वस्तरीय चिकित्सा सुविधाओं के साथ बना रहा है। भवन का पुनर्निर्माण किया गया है और वह विभिन्न उपकरणों और मशीनों की खरीद की प्रक्रिया शुरू कर रही है। खरीद के लिए जिम्मेदार समिति के प्रमुख के रूप में उन्होंने चिकित्सा उपकरणों का कारोबार करने वाले सभी प्रतिष्ठित इच्छुक विक्रेताओं से बोलियाँ आमंत्रित की हैं। उन्होंने देखा कि उनका भाई, जो इस क्षेत्र में एक प्रसिद्ध आपूर्तिकर्ता है, ने भी अपनी रुचि व्यक्त की है। चूँकि अस्पताल निजी स्वामित्व में है, इसलिए उनके लिए केवल कम बोली लगाने वाले को चुनना अनिवार्य नहीं है। इसके अलावा उन्हें ज्ञात है कि उनके भाई की कंपनी कुछ वित्तीय कठिनाइयों का सामना कर रही है और बड़ी आपूर्ति का एक आदेश उसे उबारने में सहायता करेगा। साथ ही उनके भाई को अनुबंध आबंटित करना, उनके खिलाफ पक्षपात का आरोप हो सकता है और उनकी छवि खराब कर सकता है। अस्पताल प्रबंधन उन पर पूरा भरोसा करता है और उनके किसी भी फैसले का समर्थन करेगा। (a) स्नेहा को क्या करना चाहिए? (b) वह जो करना चाहती है उसे कैसे उचित सिद्ध करेंगी? (c) इस मामले में, चिकित्सा नैतिकता कैसे निहित व्यक्तिगत हित से युक्त है? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Suggest

This question asks you to suggest. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'suggest' in part (a) demands prescriptive, action-oriented responses with ethical reasoning. Structure as: brief context (20 words) → part (a) course of action with justification (100 words) → part (b) ethical principles invoked (70 words) → part (c) analysis of compromised medical ethics (60 words). Ensure all three sub-parts receive coverage with (a) carrying slightly more weight as the decisional core.

Key points expected

For (a): Sneha must recuse herself from the procurement committee or ensure transparent, competitive bidding with third-party evaluation; direct award to brother is unacceptable
For (a): Alternative: full disclosure to hospital management with documented arm's-length process, possibly independent technical evaluation
For (b): Justification through Rawlsian veil of ignorance, utilitarian harm-benefit analysis, and fiduciary duty to patients; reference to integrity and objectivity in Nolan Committee principles
For (c): Medical ethics compromised through: compromised equipment quality (patient safety), inflated costs (justice/access), erosion of trust in institution (beneficence)
For (c): Specific mention of how conflict of interest violates ICMR Code of Ethics 2017 and WHO guidelines on health technology procurement

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Correctly interprets 'suggest' in (a) as demanding actionable ethical decision, 'justify' in (b) as requiring principled reasoning, and 'how' in (c) as analytical explanation; all three sub-parts addressed with appropriate response types	Addresses all three parts but conflates directives—treats (a) as mere description or (b) as restatement of (a) without distinct ethical principles	Misses directive demands entirely—provides only narrative description without prescription in (a), no principled justification in (b), or lists without analysis in (c)
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Demonstrates sophisticated grasp of conflict of interest typology (actual vs. apparent), distinguishes private sector flexibility from ethical obligations, accurately applies fiduciary duty and public trust concepts	Identifies basic conflict of interest and general ethical concern but conflates legality with ethics or misses distinction between private hospital discretion and professional obligations	Superficial treatment—suggests 'award to brother if quality is good' without procedural safeguards, or ignores institutional reputation and patient welfare dimensions
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear tripartite structure with explicit markers for (a), (b), (c); seamless logical progression from decision to justification to systemic analysis; tight integration within 250-word constraint	All parts present but poorly demarcated or unbalanced—one part dominates at expense of others; some repetition between (b) and (c)	Disorganized response without sub-part identification; rambling narrative that fails to distinguish between the three questions asked
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Cites specific precedents: Medical Council of India v. Sanjay Gupta (conflict of interest in medical practice), ICMR Code of Ethics 2017 provisions, or comparable international frameworks like WHO Medical Device Procurement Guidelines	Generic reference to 'medical ethics' or 'corporate governance' without specific code/article; or uses non-medical examples (e.g., general corporate corruption)	No examples, case law, or regulatory frameworks cited; entirely abstract response without grounding in medical ethics literature or Indian regulatory context
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesizes into broader insight: private hospital governance requires self-regulation matching public sector standards; or notes that patient trust transcends ownership structure—demonstrates systems thinking	Restates main points without synthesis; or provides generic conclusion about 'ethics being important' without specific insight from this case	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicts earlier analysis (e.g., endorsing brother's bid after claiming to reject conflict of interest)

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →