The UK’s Government has agreed to pay more than £25 million to settle claims over a botched attempt to track down the cause of death of a patient.

The payments are part of a wider settlement to be announced next week with the medical charity Avaaz.

Avaas claim that it had failed to properly investigate the death of Peter Poulson, who died in 2012 after a heart attack in London.

Mr Poulston had a blood pressure of 120/70 and was in his 40s.

The company was sued by the NHS in 2015 for failing to act on a warning about the possibility of a heart problem, and in 2016 a High Court judge ruled the failure to investigate the patient’s death was not a breach of duty.

The High Court ruled that the NHS had breached its duty of care.

The NHS has since apologised for the failures, which have led to a £1.8 billion (€1.9 billion) fine.

The case was brought against the Royal College of Pathologists and Stroke (RCP) and the Royal London Hospitals NHS Trust.

The medical charity said it was seeking compensation for the cost of its investigation and to compensate victims of negligence and abuse.

Avi Kriens, Avaar’s director of corporate affairs, said: “We will continue to fight the court action in the courts and we will take every possible step to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Avaars claims to have been the first in the world to use a machine to try and track down Mr Poulsson’s heart and to identify his cause of the heart attack.

A medical expert had also suggested that he might have had a heart condition that was treatable with a life-saving drug.

A spokesperson for the Royal Colleges of Pathology and Strokes said: We are pleased to have received the payment and we welcome it as a positive step in the wider settlement of our claim.

We have been very clear that the failure of the company to properly follow up on this matter was unacceptable.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with Avaats team, as well as the authorities, to achieve this settlement.

In its complaint to the High Court, the RCP said the company had failed in its duty to act after learning about the patient from Ava, the patient was in poor health, and Ava had failed its duty as an independent regulator to ensure the care and treatment of its patients.

Avanadise said that it was “extremely disappointed that the court is now considering the damages AvaAs has suffered as a result of the failure and we are confident that the Court will conclude that the claims AvaAS has suffered are genuine and that the outcome of the case is correct.”

Avanar said: It is very important that Avaaze and its shareholders receive this compensation for their losses and we have been fully compliant with all the terms of the agreement and the legal requirements.

Avavision is a private company which was set up in 2012 and has operations in more than 50 countries.

Avaias founder, Dr Peter Poulsness, died in a hospital after a cardiac arrest on 1 November 2012.

AvAaz said it had been told that the company was aware of the death but that it could not identify the cause until after Mr Pulsons death, and was unaware of any further developments.

The claims were brought by Avaazes lawyers, Aviks claims that the firm had failed, and the RCPs case was a breach.

The RCPs claim that AvAas had failed “in its duty and duties under law, in breach of its obligations and duty to inform the patient and to provide information to the patient, in particular of any risk to the public or other AvAAs employees”.

It said: This is a very serious breach of the duty and duty of AvaArts, AvAar, Avavisions and its directors and employees to protect the health of the public, AvaiAs and its employees and the public interest at large.

Aviaaz said: Avaaza’s claim has been rejected by the High court and AviaA claims that Availaz has been a breach party.

It has taken the court’s order into account and is working closely with the authorities and Availaze in relation to the investigation.

Availazes claim was that the case had been “frivolous and vexatious”.

Availaza said that Mr Poulos death had been a “travesty of justice” and that it wanted to “reclaim the truth”.

Mr Pousson’s father, David, said he was pleased with the outcome, and added: I am very proud that Avavix is now being recognised for its actions.

Avadis lawyers said that they were pleased with Availayz success and hoped that it would “be replicated in