ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 31.3.16 of Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 22B of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 against the respondent claiming compensation on account of negligence on the part of Dr. Tambvakar of Bombay Hospitals and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, in performing operation of Blepheroplasty and Removal of Silastic, stands rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the operation was performed by Dr. Tambvakar at Bombay Hospitals and Research Centre on 19.3.04 and she was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The negligence in performing the operation lead to development of Ptosis as a consequence of which the petitioner's eyelids remain open even when she is lying down or sleeping and her eyes are constantly watering due to aforesaid conditions. For the treatment of Ptosis, the petitioner was constrained to travel to Noida, Chennai, Hyderabad time and again, on account of which she has incurred heavy expenditure. Learned counsel submitted that in spite of giving cost estimate of Rs. 12,000/- for operation, a bill of Rs. 31,730/- was raised and the excess amount realised has not been refunded by the respondent No. 1 despite demand being raised. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Tambvakar, who had expired during the pendency of the petition before Permanent Lok Adalat, had taken an insurance policy from the New India Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, in respect of the liability likely to be incurred on account of act, omission or negligence on his part in undertaking surgery and therefore, the petitioner had approached Regional Office of New India Insurance Company Limited at Udaipur, claiming compensation however, the claim was declined. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has suffered Ptosis subsequent to the operation and thus, partly the cause of action has arisen at Udaipur. That apart, since the New India Insurance Company Limited is also carrying on business through its Branch Office at Udaipur, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner and thus, the order impugned rejecting the application for want of territorial jurisdiction, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 3. 2. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 3. Indisputably, the petitioner had undergone the operation at Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai and therefore, the suit for compensation for wrongful act, could have been filed only at Mumbai. A perusal of the petition preferred by the petitioner reveals that the claim was sought to be brought within the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat solely on the ground that the New India Insurance Company, which has issued insurance policy in favour of Dr. Tambvakar is also carrying on business through its Branch Office at Udaipur. Admittedly, the policy in favour of Dr. Tambvakar, who had performed the operation for liability likely to be incurred on account of act, omission or negligence was issued by New India Insurance Company Limited at Mumbai and thus, merely because, the Insurance Company is also carrying on business at Udaipur, the Permanent Lok Adalat at Udaipur does not acquire the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of Section 22B of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat established exercises the jurisdiction vested in it only in respect of dispute relating to public utility services for such areas as may be specified in the notification. 4. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, rejecting the petitioner preferred by the petitioner for want of territorial jurisdiction, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition Dismissed.