Aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Appeal No. 221/ 2010, the original complaint, has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 4.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar in complaint no. 241 / 2009 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein and directed the respondent insurance company to pay the insured amount to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 2. We have heard the petitioner in person and have considered her submissions. She would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence and material brought on record. She even alleged that she had received a cheque of Rs.2 lakh from the Insurance Company for which she has absolutely no proof and there is no reference anywhere either in the complaint or in any of the orders passed by the Fora below. She further submits that she is in a great financial hardship after the death of her husband who had taken a loan of Rs.2 lakh from the Citi Finance Consumer Ltd. She prays for compassionate view in the matter. We have heard her submissions but except expressing of lip sympathy, we cannot do anything further in this matter. The order passed by the State Commission is fully justified on record and is strictly in consonance with the legal position. The State Commission has rightly held that no contract of insurance came into existence between the husband of the petitioner and the insurance company in as much as only the premium was deposited by Late Chandrashekhar Uniyal but he failed to complete the other requisite formalities to firm up proposal in a contract of insurance. No proposal was accepted and no policy was issued by the respondent and even the cheque received towards premium by the respondent company was refunded to Late Chandrashekhar Uniyal, which he had encashed during his life time. In this regard the State Commission has observed as under :- he insurance company has specifically stated that the said premium of Rs. 2,799/- was returned / refunded to the proposer through letter dated 21.07.2007 and the cheque was also encashed by him. No document / evidence has been filed by the complainant to show that the said premium was not refunded by the insurance company or that her deceased husband deposited any other premium / installment with the insurance company, which was with the insurance company on the date of death of her husband and was not refunded by the insurance company. No copy of the insurance policy has also been filed by the complainant. It is important to mention here that the premium was refunded vide letter dated 21.07.2007 and the husband of the complainant died on 10.11.2008 after more than 15 months and no receipt regarding deposit of premium has been placed on record by the complainant. As stated above, the premium amount of Rs. 2,799/- was refunded by the insurance company during the lifetime of the proposer and the cheque was encashed by him. The complainant has not been able to show by any document / evidence that on the date of death of her husband, he was insured with the insurance company or that any contract of insurance was executed between the parties and the policy was issued in favour of her deceased husband. It is a settled law that a contract is not a binding contract unless the person, to whom the offer is made, accepts the offer. As stated above, the insurance company has come up with the specific case that on account of non-fulfillment of the required formalities by the proposer, the premium received along with proposal was returned / refunded and the contract of insurance was not executed between the parties. Since the complainant has not been able to show by any plausible / reliable evidence that the contract of insurance was executed between the parties and the policy of insurance was issued in favour of her deceased husband or that the premium was not refunded by the insurance company and the cheque towards refund of the premium was not encashed by her husband during his lifetime, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the District Forum and are unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the District Forum and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Legal position in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of ife Insurance Co. of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & Ors.[(1984) 2 SCC 719]. We do not see any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.