Kasaragod: A family from Kasaragod visiting Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram booked a four-bed room at Roop Mahal Hotel for ₹3,500. But their stay was anything but bliss. They came away with bedbug bites, swollen red lumps and rashes.

When they complained, the hotel allegedly brushed them off, saying they were mosquito bites. But the second night was no different.

When they took the matter to the Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the hotel first argued that the case should be filed in Thiruvananthapuram, where it operates. It then contended that the complaint was invalid because it had been filed by the customer's father, not the daughter who booked and paid for the room.

The commission dismissed both arguments and directed Roop Mahal to pay ₹30,000 towards medical expenses, compensation and litigation costs, said Adv A Radhakrishnan, who represented the retired teacher.

On August 26, 2024, retired teacher Vasudeva Konoorayar, his daughter Asha V, a makeup artist, and family from Kayyur in Kasaragod checked into an air-conditioned four-bed room at Roop Mahal, paying ₹3,500 through Google Pay. They were in the capital to attend a wedding and visit the temple.

After going to bed, family members woke up with bites and rashes. Asha developed multiple red marks that swelled into itchy lumps. When she complained at the reception, the staff reportedly dismissed the bites as mosquito bites. The family was neither offered an alternative room nor given a satisfactory remedy, the complaint said.

Asha sought medical treatment the next day in the city. The doctor attributed the injuries to bedbug bites, according to the complaint. She continued treatment, undergoing tests and taking prescribed medicines.

The hotel management did not adequately respond even after the family raised the matter with its general manager, Vasudeva alleged.

The family returned home and approached the Kasaragod consumer commission. The hotel contested the forum's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint should be filed where it operated in Thiruvananthapuram. The commission rejected that objection, holding that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, also permits a complaint to be filed where the complainant resides.

The hotel, which said it had been operating since 2015 without receiving a single complaint about deficient service, denied the allegations as a fabricated attempt to extract money. It also argued that Vasudeva could not maintain the complaint because his daughter had booked and paid for the room. The commission found that Asha had authorised her father through a power of attorney to pursue the case while she was working in Udupi, Karnataka.

The medical records, laboratory bills, payment receipt and hotel documents supported the family's case, the commission held. It rejected the hotel's contentions and found a gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, citing its failure to maintain proper hygiene and provide an alternative room after the complaint.

In an order dated September 28, the commission directed Roop Mahal to reimburse ₹10,000 in treatment expenses, pay ₹15,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, within 30 days of receiving the order.

The family had sought ₹3.5 lakh in compensation and ₹50,000 in costs.