Re: IEC 60601-1-11 - Medical Electrical Equipment IP (Ingress Protection) Requirement
Yes, the text of 7.2 conflicts with 8.3.1, it's a mistake in the standard that will need to be rectified. There are a number of other cases of outright and provable mistakes in IEC standards (for example, the alarm standard IEC 60601-1-8, and all of the ECG standards like 601-2-25) so it's not completely uncharted territory.
Further, there is a reasonable argument to say that having a minimum requirement of IPX1 is excessive as a general requirement, taking into account the number and nature of electrical devices typically used in the home. That is, if it's required for medical, it should be required for a lot of other electrical devices, and there really is not the market data to support this.
It's also worth to note that a "true" IPX1 rating is not just a matter of wiping the water off and doing a dielectric strength test. Rather, IEC 60529 says the water " ... shall not ... interfere with the correct operation of the equipment ... ".
There is expected to be a range of medical equipment where the water would not cause any problem for basic safety (shock/fire) but could easily interfere normal operation such as sensors or getting into battery compartment or secondary electronics. Even though basic safety is OK, it fails IPX1.
One manufacturer of home use blood pressure meters found that IEC 80601-2-30, which clearly refers to home use equipment, does not specify that IPX1 or better is required. They pointed out that a particular standard (-2-30) overrides the collateral (-1-11), and concluded that the IPX1 test was not applicable. It's a kind of fudge, but gets to a reasonable result.
As always, modern regulation does not require compliance with standards. However, you do need to carefully document and justify any cases where you do not comply with a standard, even if it appears, as in this case, that the standard in fault.