Incident During January 2025 Stay
The complainant, a practising advocate from Chennai, had booked a premium “Grand Room with Lake View” at the Leela Palace for a one-day stay in January 2025. The non-refundable booking, costing ₹55,500, was planned as a combined birthday celebration and ‘baby-moon’ for the couple.
According to the complaint, a housekeeping staff member entered the room using a master key within seconds of ringing the doorbell, despite the room being occupied. At the time, both the complainant and her husband were inside the washroom, leaving them shocked, humiliated, and distressed.
Hotel’s SOP Defence Rejected
The Leela Palace defended the action by citing its internal standard operating procedures, claiming staff were permitted to enter rooms after ringing the bell if there was no immediate response. However, the consumer commission firmly rejected this argument.
The court observed that internal SOPs cannot override a guest’s right to privacy, especially in a five-star establishment charging premium tariffs. Entering an occupied room in under a minute using a master key was described as unreasonable, unsafe, and unacceptable.
Evidence Strengthened Guest’s Case
The commission relied on contemporaneous evidence to establish the hotel’s liability. This included WhatsApp messages exchanged with senior hotel officials, written apology letters issued by the housekeeping staff and hotel management on the same day, and photographs showing a broken washroom door.
The presence of a non-functional CCTV camera outside the room further weakened the hotel’s defence. The court noted that these materials corroborated the complainant’s version and disproved claims that there was no immediate protest.
Post-Incident Conduct Under Scrutiny
The court also criticised the hotel’s behaviour after the incident. It cited delays in providing CCTV footage, misleading assurances given to the couple, and harassment during checkout.
The complainant and her husband were allegedly made to wait for hours, and their luggage was withheld, adding to their distress. The commission held that such conduct compounded the mental trauma already suffered.
Pregnancy Aggravated Trauma
A key factor influencing the compensation amount was the complainant’s pregnancy. The commission observed that hotels owe a higher duty of care to vulnerable guests, including expectant mothers.
The mental shock and sense of insecurity caused by the intrusion were held to be particularly serious given her condition, warranting enhanced compensation for non-pecuniary damages.
Compensation and Refund Ordered
Holding the hotel fully liable, the consumer court ordered the Leela Palace to refund the entire room tariff of ₹55,500 with 9% interest from January 26, 2025. In addition, it directed the hotel to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
A further ₹10,000 was awarded towards litigation costs. The total amount is to be paid within two months of the order.
Broader Implications for Hospitality Sector
The ruling reinforces that luxury branding does not place hotels above consumer protection laws. Guest privacy, the commission underlined, is a non-negotiable right, not a discretionary courtesy.
The decision aligns with principles laid down under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which emphasises accountability and fair treatment of consumers.
Legal experts say the order may prompt hotels across India to revisit housekeeping protocols, master key policies, and staff training to avoid similar violations.
