In the case of insurance contracts, even if a policyholder accepts the same things in the same sense, the contract is still not valid if he did not have free consent when signing the contract. Free consent refers to an agreement when both parties knowingly and voluntarily enter into a contract of their own free will. This includes acceptance of all terms and conditions and a mutual understanding of the subject matter of the contract. Coercion and undue influence are the factors of contestability of free consent; Each factor affects the contract differently. So let`s see how they differ in detail – the burden of proof lies with the party, which is supposed to be able to dominate the will of the other party. To prove the existence of free consent, it is necessary to prove that one of the contracting parties was not influenced by each other in the circumstances mentioned above. Voluntary consent is called free consent. Under section 14 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, free consent is consent that is not the result of coercion (section 15), undue influence (section 16), fraud (section 17), misrepresentation (section 18) or error (sections 20, 21, 22). The principle of consensus-ad-idem, which means «meeting of spirits», underlies the concept of free consent. Consensus-ad-idem occurs when two parties agree on the same thing with the same understanding.

Error is another important factor of free consent to avoid the contract. The mistake could be everything that happened in the agreement itself. Errors are of two types – one is unilateral and the other is bilateral. «A» and «B» are the two parts of a contract. We saw that there was a crisis and «A» had presented a plan to solve it. After «B» was made aware of this fact and analyzed that it was the perfect solution, he agreed. In this case, both parties have shown their consent. To recognize undue influence, the dominant party must aim to exploit the other party. If the influence is exerted for the benefit of the other party, it is not undue influence. However, if the consent is not free because of undue influence, the contract becomes objectionable at the choice of the aggravated party. And the burden of proof lies with the dominant party to prove the lack of influence. Now, free consent has been defined in section 14 of the Act.

The article states that consent is considered free consent if it is not caused or influenced by: If the relations between the parties are such that one of the parties can override the will of the other and use the unfair advantage to obtain the consent of the other party, consent is said to have been obtained by undue influence. The Treaties Act of 1872 now contains cases in which one person can exercise dominion over the will of another. Here are some cases: Coercion: Coercion means that the entry of one of the parties may be forced or that one of them may be compelled to engage in illegal activities or obligations contrary to the Indian Penal Code, etc. The effect of coercion results in the termination of the entire contract after a thorough investigation. The legal entity will limit the obligations of both parties in this case. If the undertaking is vigorously fulfilled, we can say unequivocally that it is not exempt from consent. In the case of fraud, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming it. The party must prove the circumstances that could lead to the existence of fraud. The mere mention of fraud in pleadings is not enough. The contract is not void if the party whose consent was obtained by fraud had the opportunity or the means to discover the truth with ordinary care. Free consent is an agreement between two parties to fulfill the wish of one or both parties. The characteristics of perfect free consent are as follows: As mentioned above, certain factors or elements must not be present to prove the existence of free consent in an agreement.

These are described in the Indian Treaty Act starting in sections 15-18 and 20-21.