A luxury stay meant to celebrate a personal milestone turned into a legal battle over privacy rights, after a consumer commission held Leela Palace Udaipur liable for a serious breach of guest privacy and ordered it to pay Rs. 10 lakh in compensation.
What happened
The case was filed by a Chennai-based advocate who had booked a Grand Room with Lake View at the Leela Palace Udaipur for Rs. 55,500. The stay, scheduled in January 2025, was planned to celebrate her husband’s birthday and their babymoon.
However, on 27 January 2025, the experience allegedly took a disturbing turn. According to the complaint, a housekeeping staff member rang the doorbell and, despite the couple shouting “No service”, entered the occupied room within seconds using a master key.
At the time, the couple was inside the washroom.
Allegation of peeping
The complaint further alleged that the housekeeping staff peeped through a broken washroom door, causing the couple severe mental distress, humiliation, and trauma. The incident, the complainant said, shattered their sense of safety and privacy in what was supposed to be a secure luxury environment.
Hotel’s defence rejected
The hotel defended itself by citing its internal Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). However, the consumer commission firmly rejected this argument.
The commission observed that:
- Internal SOPs cannot override a guest’s right to privacy
- Entering an occupied room using a master key in under a minute was unreasonable and unsafe
- The hotel failed in its duty of care towards its guests
It further noted that luxury hotels are expected to maintain higher standards of privacy, security, and sensitivity.
Commission’s order
Holding the hotel liable for deficiency in service, the commission directed the Leela Palace Udaipur to pay:
- Refund of Rs. 55,500 (room tariff) with 9 per cent interest
- Rs. 10 lakh as compensation for mental agony and damages
- Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs
The entire amount must be paid within two months of the order.
Why this case matters
The ruling reinforces a key principle:
A guest’s right to privacy cannot be compromised, regardless of a hotel’s internal rules or operational convenience.
The order sends a strong message to the hospitality industry that luxury branding does not absolve establishments of accountability — and that violations of personal space, especially in private areas such as washrooms, will invite serious consequences.
For travellers, the verdict underlines that consumer law recognises mental distress and dignity as legitimate damages, even in the absence of physical harm.
