Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14. "Free consent" defined Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by- (1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or (4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21, and 22. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake."
 

13.     The terms coercion, undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation are defined in Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 respectively of the Indian Contract Act and read as under:

15. "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.

Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).

17. "Fraud defined "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agents , with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

(1) the suggestion as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

14.     From the above, it is made out that the consent given by a person would be deemed to be a free consent and would be binding upon the parties to the contract, unless it can be shown that it was obtained by exercise of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation etc., as defined in sections 15, 16, 17 & 18 or by mistake subject to provisions of sections 20 to 22 of the Indian Contract Act."

15.     In the instant case, there is no material or evidence on record from which it could be deciphered that the OP insurance company was in a position to dominate the will of the complainant and used that position to cause undue influence upon him.  There is no evidence that the mental capacity of the complainant was temporarily or permanently affected by reasons of age, illness or mental or bodily distressed.  There is no allegation of any fraud or concealment of any material fact by the insurance company from the complainant.  There are no allegation of any misrepresentation also, meaning thereby that there is no action, which could be termed as illegal under the provisions quoted above.  The contention of the complainant that the letter dated 23.08.99 was sent because of financial hardship faced by him, does not constitute coercion as defined in section 15 of the Indian Contract Act.  The complainant was free to file a consumer complaint against the OP Insurance Company, even before he signed the letter dated 23.08.99.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any account books / balance sheet etc. from which it could be observed that the complainant was in a state of financial distress at that time.  The complainant has, therefore, failed to substantiate the reasons given by him that the letter dated 23.08.99 was sent by him without free consent.