A consumer forum in Chennai recently ordered Leela Palace hotel at Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to a woman after housekeeping staff entered her room using a master key thereby violating her privacy [SN v. Schloss Udaipur Private Limited]..The consumer forum ruled that housekeeping staff cannot enter an occupied guest room using a master key solely on the basis of internal standard operating procedures (SOPs).The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) bench comprising President D Gopinath and members Kavitha Kannan and R Sivakumhar held that such an act amounts to a deficiency in service and violates the guest’s right to privacy. Accordingly, the Commission directed the hotel to refund the entire room tariff of ₹55,500 to the guest, with an interest at 9 percent per annum from January 26, 2025 until realization. It also awarded the ₹10 lakh as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. The amounts are to be paid within two months from receipt of the order, failing which interest at 9 percent per annum would apply..The decision was pronounced on December 16, 2025, on a consumer complaint filed against Schloss Udaipur Private Limited, which operates The Leela Palace, Udaipur.The complainant, a Chennai-based advocate, had booked a “Grand Room with Lake View” at the hotel for a one-day stay. She alleged that a housekeeping staff member entered her room using a master key while she and her husband were inside the washroom.She stated that the entry was made without her consent and that because the washroom door was broken, it resulted in a serious invasion of her privacy. According to her, the incident caused significant mental distress..In response, the hotel denied any wrongdoing and maintained that its housekeeping staff acted in accordance with established standard operating procedures.It said that the staff are trained to ring the doorbell, announce themselves, and wait before entering if there is no response. The hotel claimed that no “Do Not Disturb” sign was displayed and that neither the door latch nor the double lock was engaged.It also stated that the staff member left immediately after realising the washroom was in use, and that the apology letters issued later were merely goodwill gestures and did not amount to an admission of fault..However, the Commission ruled that internal SOPs cannot take precedence over a hotel’s basic duty to protect the privacy and safety of its guests, especially in a premium hotel that charges high room tariffs."The reliance on SOPs cannot override a guest's fundamental rights to privacy, particularly in a five-star luxury hotel charging premium tariffs, to guarantee the same... Entry was effected by using master key, within less than one minute of ringing the bell, which... is unreasonable and unsafe in a situation where the room was occupied and the washroom was in use," said the Commission.It was also observed that allowing staff to use a master key to enter a room while it is occupied, without proper checks, amounts to a serious lapse in hospitality service."If the staff could not hear any voice from inside, they should have avoided entering the room using the master key and should have informed the reception desk to verify the guest’s presence through intercom or telephone...The failure to produce the SOP clearly establishes negligence in handling and maintaining basic etiquette by the staff... Had the SOPs been strictly followed, the incident in question could have been avoided," the Commission said..The Commission noted that even by the hotel’s own account, the staff member entered the room using a master key shortly after ringing the doorbell. It held that such an entry was unreasonable and unsafe, particularly when the room was occupied. The Commission also pointed out that the hotel failed to demonstrate that its SOPs required any verification through the reception desk or the room intercom before entering an occupied guest room.It observed that written apology letters issued by hotel staff and management on the same day carried evidentiary value and could not be dismissed as routine hospitality gestures. "Though... (the Hotel) calls them "goodwill gestures," the Commission cannot ignore that such written apologies, issued on the very date of the incident, acknowledge failure and lapse in handling the situation. In consumer jurisprudence, such admissions, even if styled as apologies, carry evidentiary value and cannot be brushed aside as routine hospitality practice," it said..The Commission also accepted the complainant’s claim that the washroom door had been broken, noting that the hotel did not charge her for any damage. It further recorded that the CCTV camera outside the room was not functioning and that there were delays in providing the footage, raising serious concerns about the hotel’s service standards and safety practices..The Commission examined the hotel’s conduct after the incident, noting delays in addressing the complaint, repeated assurances without resolution, and the inconvenience caused while the complainant and her husband waited to collect their belongings before departure.While the Commission declined to direct mandatory publication of SOPs or issuance of a public apology, it noted that under Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it has the power to award compensation proportionate to the injury suffered.Accordingly, it allowed the complaint. .The complainant was represented by Ask Law Firm through advocates Aryan Suresh and Sonu Mehttha.Advocate Vivrti Law represented Schloss Udaipur Private Limited. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
