I don't understand much of the reasoning behind many of the posts on this topic. There are at least 3 rules that apply as was pointed out by Dave Miller in addition to the all important Rule #1.
Why are we no longer holding players responsible for their actions, lack of action or failure to follow procedures?
There are just too many to list and others have done so anyway, so I don't need to restate them here.
I see the "responsibility" for following procedures and rules split 50/50 between the dealer and the players (as a group). The failure of one does no absolve the other to "make things right".
Therefore in this instance, while it is awful and unfortunate, I believe that the all in player is out. If the house can provide some form of gratuity or compensation that is great, but it is not required by the rules.
Had the all in player brought things up timely (before the next deal), then I would certainly support going back and splitting the pot, but alas he did not, so I fail to see any applicable recourse.
I cannot support invoking Rule #1 since (as has been stated) there are several TDA rules that should be been brought up which were not.
Chet