Within 3 days of the incident, and the groundswell of people not buying the media's attempt to make people feel sorry for the piece of shit CEO who made money off the suffering of his countrymen, reversed a new policy where they were going to only cover part of the cost of anesthetic if the procedure "took too long". A policy that would increase mistakes made during surgery or babysitting more people for no reason other than greed.

So yes. It helped millions. Pretty much Immediately. Is everything fixed? No. Was intentional harm reduced? Slightly.

So did anyones live get saved by his action?

Yes actually. Insurance companies across the board suddenly started approving claims at a noticeably higher rate immediately after. A large enough increase that it was immediately felt by consumers and the media even covered the change. Thousands of lives were demonstrably improved by not having to deal with bullshit fights over claims being systematically denied by default like they had been.

Do you live under a rock like Patrick Starfish?

in any situation

Really? So if an invading army rolls down the street, everyone should just try to have a chat?

So he should be punished for killing a man "on the street", but the man he (allegedly) killed, the one who ordered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths all for the sake of making more money that he doesn't need; you think that's fine and acceptable and we should all just let it keep happening because it didn't occur "on the street"?

What is sick is your suggestion that giving a mass murderer his comeuppance is morally wrong. Your framing of this as anything but what it actually very obviously is is pathetic and paper-thin.