Recently shared harrowing personal account on LinkedIn by Minal Srivastava, Vice President at Reliance Fashion and Lifestyle, sheds light on how consumer wearables like the Apple Watch and WHOOP band are often perceived as life-saving devices, but may not always work as expected in real emergencies. Her post, which has sparked widespread discussion, underscores both the promise and the limitations of health-tracking technology.
In a moment of uncertainty, the man looked at the two devices strapped to his wrist – an Apple Watch and a WHOOP band – both of which showed no abnormal readings. (Unsplash) A flight, a heart attack, and a life-saving decision
Srivastava wrote that her husband suffered a massive heart attack shortly after boarding a flight to Bengaluru. The symptoms were classic – sweating, pain in the arms, and breathing unease. Flight attendants and the pilot offered immediate medical support, including the option to deboard and seek emergency help.
But in a moment of uncertainty, her husband looked at the two devices strapped to his wrist – an Apple Watch and a WHOOP band – both of which showed no abnormal readings. Believing he was safe, and thinking of his 13-year-old son, he decided to stay onboard.
That choice, Srivastava wrote, “was a death sentence.” Doctors later described the surgery he underwent as a “Widow’s Call” – so dangerous that families are often braced for the worst. Miraculously, thanks to timely intervention, medical expertise, and his athletic strength, he survived.
Wearables and the perception of safety
In her post, Srivastava reflected on how these devices, marketed for their health-monitoring capabilities, can sometimes create a “misconception of security.” Her husband, she noted, had long joked that his Apple Watch would often interpret post-match exhaustion as a possible heart condition. Yet, during a real heart attack, both devices failed to flag an issue.
This contrast, she suggested, highlights a gap between consumer perception and product reality. For years, Apple, WHOOP, Fitbit, and others have promoted features like heart rate monitoring, ECG readings, and irregular rhythm notifications. Many users have credited such devices with saving their lives by flagging anomalies early. At the same time, experts caution that these wearables are not medical devices and cannot replace professional diagnosis or emergency care.
Minal Srivastava’s LinkedIn post. The fine print and the human cost
Srivastava acknowledged that Apple and WHOOP likely have legal disclaimers protecting them from liability. Yet, she questioned how many everyday users truly understand that these wristbands are not foolproof detectors of cardiac events. “Not everyone will have a heart attack,” she wrote, “but I just want to check on how many regular users of such devices believe that if and when they do, these devices will raise an alarm and help them make the right choice?”
It’s a sobering question, because the marketing narratives often blur the line between lifestyle technology and medical reliability. That thin line became deeply personal in her family’s crisis.
A reminder, not a rejection
While her post raised valid concerns, Srivastava stopped short of condemning Apple or WHOOP outright. Instead, she framed her experience as a cautionary tale. The takeaway is less about abandoning wearables, and more about understanding their limitations.
Doctors have often credited wearables for early detection of atrial fibrillation, irregular heart rhythms, or even alerting users to abnormal oxygen saturation. At the same time, cardiologists warn that no consumer wearable can reliably diagnose or prevent a heart attack in real time.
For Srivastava, the ordeal has been both a test of resilience and a reminder of fragility. “After a heart-wrenching, totally chaotic few days,” she wrote, “I sit alone with my first peaceful cup of coffee… and sob and then rage.”
Her story has resonated because it captures the dual nature of modern health tech: a powerful companion, but never a substitute for medical vigilance.