Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A high-flying executive is fighting for compensation over claims that a fertility treatment She suffered a lot due to “bootcamp” at a prestigious clinic stroke,
Navkiran Dhillon-Byrne, 51, begins a cycle of personal life IVF Four years later in 2018, she received treatment at the Assisted Reproduction and Gynecology Center (ARGC) in Wimpole Street, London, after being told the NHS was unable to fund it.
The ARGC clinic, headed by leading IVF specialist Mohammed Taranissi, speaks on its website of its staff focusing on “thorough screening, daily monitoring and real-time treatment adjustments”. Slogan “Some people call it IVF boot camp – our patients call it their Miracle,
Ms Dhillon-Byrne underwent IVF in April 2018, but suffered a stroke on April 28, 10 days after treatment ended, which her lawyers say contributed to her ongoing vision problems.
As part of her IVF cycle, she also agreed to undergo a one-time “add-on” treatment in the form of pioneering IVIG immunotherapy, designed to control the body’s immune responses during pregnancy.
She is now suing the clinic and Dr. Taranisi, claiming that the physicians failed to adequately warn her about the stroke risks associated with that part of her therapy.
But the clinic and Dr Taranissi have denied blame, insisting Ms Dhillon-Byrne was fully informed about the risks she faced and disputing that IVIG caused her stroke.
Central London County Court heard that after aging out of her window for NHS fertility treatment, Ms Dhillon-Byrne had unsuccessfully attempted IVF at another well-known London clinic before turning to ARGC. She told the court that she had been trying to give birth to a child since 2014.
Ms Dhillon-Byrne, chief marketing officer at the City of London base of an international software company, said she chose ARGC after it was recommended by a friend who praised its high success rate.
But she says she was not warned about the “specific” risks of thrombosis in relation to the IVIG part of her treatment and she blames this for the stroke she suffered on April 28, 2018.
Now suing for negligence and breach of duty, Ms Dhillon-Byrne also says the clinic underestimated her chances of a successful outcome from IVF and failed to gain her “informed consent” before starting treatment.
She insists that had she been given a clear picture of her chances of a successful pregnancy, she would not have consented to IVF and supplemental IVIG therapy.
Refuting 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 ARGC data”, adding that he had also been told that the immunotherapy was new and “still controversial”.
But in her evidence, Ms Dhillon-Byrne said she felt rushed during some of her consultations, claiming she received little 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 escorted out the door and he didn’t share much information with me, except that he found it to be more effective.”
She further added that as a patient she was surprised by the lack of attention shown by her consultant, explaining: “My first consultation was quite quick, and I remember my husband and I walking away and being surprised by the length of it. It was definitely not the length of consultation we were used to.”
“We were a bit surprised,” he told the court, although defense barrister Ms Bradley insisted there would have been “long and detailed consultation” given the careful and full clinical notes taken by his doctor.
Ms Dhillon-Byrne’s barrister Charles Feeney argued that it was “unethical” to offer IVIG treatment to his client, adding: “A responsible medical practitioner would not prescribe and administer a high-risk treatment without significant evidence to support its potential benefit and without informing the patient about the risks.
“Therefore offering IVIG treatment was unethical.”
They argued that the clinic also failed to explain the stroke risk associated with IVIG.
They added, “The claimant was not given any warning about the specific risk of thrombosis in IVIG treatment.”
“In the defendant’s case, she was only warned about the risk of thrombosis in IVF treatment/pregnancy, but not about the additional risk of IVIG treatment.”
But Ms Bradley argued Ms Dhillon-Byrne was determined to continue her treatment even if it involved risks, claiming “even after her stroke she was considering further IVF treatment in 2018 and 2019”, which the mum-to-be’s lawyers denied.
“During the consultation, attendance and telephone call with the ARGC the claimant was given fair and appropriate advice about her treatment with IVF and IVIG, and she gave informed consent, given appropriate advice about the risks and benefits, alternative options and the option of no treatment,” she said.
“In relation to the risk of thrombosis, the claimant must have been advised of the potential risk that comes with all IVF treatment.
“Thrombosis can occur in the presence of elevated levels of oestrogen,” Ms Bradley told the court. He said aspirin and other preventive medications were prescribed.
Lawyers said outside court that if Ms Dhillon-Byrne’s claim was successful it was likely to be worth “hundreds of millions” because of the impact the stroke had on her high-flying career.
The lawsuit is ongoing.