Patient who had a stroke after IVF treatment loses claim against clinic

A patient who sued an IVF clinic following a stroke that left her with vision loss has lost her court case.

Navkiran Dhillon-Byrne underwent IVF in April 2018 at the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre (ARGC) clinic in London. She suffered a stroke ten days after completing treatment, which left her with ongoing psychological problems and issues with her vision. Dhillon-Byrne claimed that the stroke was caused by use of IVIG immunotherapy, designed to moderate a patient's immune responses during pregnancy, as an IVF 'add-on' treatment. IVIG is not licensed for use in fertility treatment, but has been widely used off-label. She argued that the clinic failed to properly inform her of the risks of IVIG treatment, and the chances of IVF resulting in a successful pregnancy. The court dismissed her claim.

'I acknowledge that the claimant has suffered a distressing series of events that must have been truly heart-wrenching for her and her husband,' Judge Luke Ashby said in his judgment. 'The claimant has proved only that IVIG possibly materially contributed to the stroke, not that it probably did ... It follows that the claim will therefore be dismissed.'

The court also considered Dhillon-Byrne's claims that she would not have consented to IVF or IVIG if she had been properly advised by the clinic. She claimed that she was not warned of the 'specific' risks associated with the use of IVIG immunotherapy, including the risk of thrombosis. Dhillon-Byrne also claimed that the clinic overestimated her chances of a successful outcome from IVF and that she felt rushed into making decisions during some of her consultations. The clinic disputed these claims, and argued the patient was, in fact, given sufficient information to consent to the treatments.

After considering the evidence, Judge Ashby concluded: 'The benefits of IVIG therapy were adequately explained to her. The material risks were also sufficiently explained... The additional risk of thrombosis as a result of IVIG was, in my view, not material in circumstances where there are no reported cases in fertility.'

The judge accepted that Dhillon-Byrne should have been told that her chances of success following IVF were up to ten percent. However, he noted that she would have gone ahead with treatment, even if she had received 'gold standard' advice on risks and benefits from the clinic.