Consumer Court Orders Leela Palace Udaipur to Pay ₹10 Lakh for Privacy Breach
Leela Palace Udaipur must pay ₹10 lakh and refund room tariff after a consumer court rules a housekeeping staff entered an occupied room with a master key.
Ahmed Mainul 
A consumer forum in Chennai has directed The Leela Palace Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation and refund the room tariff after finding the luxury hotel liable for breaching a guest’s right to privacy.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North Bench), ruled that the hotel’s housekeeping staff entering an occupied room using a master key constituted a deficiency in service. The order, pronounced on December 16, 2025, comes from a complaint filed against Schloss Udaipur Private Limited, which operates the hotel.
The complainant, a Chennai-based advocate, alleged that a housekeeping employee entered her “Grand Room with Lake View” while she and her husband were inside the washroom, without consent and by using a master key. The incident reportedly caused significant distress.
The Commission held that internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) could not override a guest’s fundamental right to privacy, especially at a premium luxury hotel that charges high tariffs. It noted that entry was made shortly after ringing the doorbell and was “unreasonable and unsafe” given that the room was occupied.
In addition to the ₹10 lakh compensation, the hotel must refund the full room tariff of ₹55,500 with interest at 9% per annum from January 26, 2025 until payment, and pay ₹10,000 toward litigation costs. If amounts are not paid within two months, additional interest will accrue.
The hotel had maintained that its staff acted per SOPs and that no “Do Not Disturb” sign was displayed. It also contended that the staff left immediately upon realizing the washroom was occupied. However, the Commission found that the SOPs did not require verification with the reception or intercom before entering and that the hotel’s response to the incident raised serious questions about service standards and guest safety.
The decision underscores the legal expectation that hospitality providers uphold guest privacy and safety beyond internal procedures, particularly in high-end segments where premium service standards are presumed.
