A high-flying executive is fighting for compensation over claims that a fertility treatment “bootcamp” at a prestigious clinic caused her to have a devastating stroke.
Navkiran Dhillon-Byrne, 51, began a cycle of private IVF treatment at the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre (ARGC) in Wimpole Street, London, in 2018, four years after being told that the NHS was unable to fund her.
The ARGC clinic, headed up by pioneering IVF specialist Mohamed Taranissi, speaks on its website of staff focusing on “in-depth investigations, daily monitoring and real-time treatment adjustments” and displays the slogan “some call it IVF boot camp – our patients call it their miracle”.
Ms Dhillon-Byrne underwent IVF in April 2018, but suffered a stroke on 28 April, 10 days after her treatment finished, which her lawyers say has left her with ongoing vision problems.
As part of her IVF cycle, she had also agreed to undergo a one-off “add-on” treatment in the form of pioneering IVIg immunotherapy, designed to moderate the body’s immune responses during pregnancy.
She is now suing the clinic and Dr Taranissi, claiming medics failed to give her sufficient warnings about stroke risks connected with that part of her therapy.
But the clinic and Dr Taranissi deny blame, insisting that Ms Dhillon-Byrne was given the full facts over the risks she faced and also disputing that IVIg caused her stroke.
Central London County Court heard that after ageing out of her window for NHS fertility treatment, Ms Dhillon-Byrne had an unsuccessful attempt at IVF at another well-regarded London clinic before turning to the ARGC. She told the court she had been trying to bear a child since 2014.
Ms Dhillon-Byrne, chief marketing officer at the City of London base of an international software company, said she opted for the ARGC after it was recommended by a friend who praised its high success rates.
But she says she was not warned of the “specific” risks of thrombosis in relation to the IVIg part of her treatment and blames it for the stroke she suffered on 28 April 2018.
Now suing for negligence and breach of duty, Ms Dhillon-Byrne also maintains that the clinic overestimated her chances of a successful outcome from IVF and failed to secure her “informed consent” before commencing treatment.
Had she been given a clear picture of her chances of a successful pregnancy, she wouldn’t have consented to IVF and the supplemental IVIg therapy, she insists.
Denying Ms Dhillon-Byrne’s claims, the clinic’s KC, Clodagh Bradley, told the court that the success rate advice given was “accurate and in accordance with the ARGC data”, adding that she had also been informed that the immune treatment was new and “still controversial”.
But in her evidence, Ms Dhillon-Byrne said she felt rushed during some of her consultations, claiming that she received scant information about the role of IVIg therapy when she raised the issue with one of the clinic’s doctors.
“I asked why it would be used,” she explained, but added: “I was being rushed out of the door and he didn’t share much information with me, other than that they found it more effective.”
She added that she was shocked by the lack of attention her consultant showed her as a patient, explaining: “My first consultation was quite quick, and I remember my husband and I walking out of there and being surprised by its duration. It definitely wasn’t the length of consultation we were used to.
“We were a bit surprised,” she told the court, although defence barrister Ms Bradley insisted there must have been a “long and detailed consultation” given the careful and full clinical note made by her doctor.
Ms Dhillon-Byrne’s barrister Charles Feeny argued that offering his client IVIg treatment was “unethical”, adding: “A responsible medical practitioner would not prescribe and administer a treatment with high risk attached without there being significant evidence to support its possible benefit and without informing the patient of the risk.
“The offering of IVIg treatment was therefore unethical.”
The clinic had also failed to clarify the stroke factor risks linked to IVIg, he argued.
“The claimant was not given any warning of the specific risk of thrombosis in IVIg treatment,” he continued.
“On the defendant’s case, she was only warned of the risk of thrombosis in IVF treatment/pregnancy, but not of the additional risk of IVIg treatment.”
But Ms Bradley argued that Ms Dhillon-Byrne was determined to carry on with her treatment even if it carried risks, claiming that “even after her stroke she was still considering further IVF treatment later in 2018 and in 2019”, which the would-be mum’s lawyers denied.
“Reasonable and appropriate advice was given to the claimant about her treatment with IVF and IVIg during consultations, attendances and telephone calls with the ARGC, and she gave informed consent, having been appropriately advised about the risks and benefits, alternative options and the option of no treatment,” she said.
“With respect to the risk of thrombosis, the claimant would have been advised about the potential risk which comes with all IVF treatment.
“Thrombosis may occur in the presence of elevated oestrogen levels,” Ms Bradley told the court, adding that aspirin and other preventive medication was prescribed.
Lawyers said outside court that if successful Ms Dhillon-Byrne’s claim is likely to be worth “millions” due to the impact of the stroke on her high-flying career.
The trial continues.
