When An Insurance Contract Is Voidable?

A voidable contract is a valid contract that may stand ‘voided’ by one of the parties if certain conditions are met. The voidability arises from the principle that both parties must act in good faith during the formation and performance of the contract.

Talking about the insurance contracts, the failure to disclose material facts by the assured (the person seeking insurance) can make the policy voidable.

Definition of Voidable Contract Definition

An agreement that is legally enforceable at the option of one or more parties involved but not at the option of the others is termed a voidable contract. According to Section 10 of the Act, any agreement qualifies as a contract if it meets the following criteria:

· It is entered into with the free consent of competent parties.

· It involves a lawful consideration.

· It has a lawful object.

Additionally, for a contract to be valid, it should not be expressly declared void by the Act. It is emphasized that this provision does not override any existing laws in India that mandate specific formalities such as writing, presence of witnesses, or registration for certain types of contracts.

The Act distinguishes a voidable contract as one enforceable at the option of one or more parties, and contracts, in general, are agreements meeting specific criteria of free consent, lawful consideration, and lawful object as outlined in Section 10. The Act also recognizes the relevance of other existing laws regarding the form and execution of contracts in India.

Get Free Quote in Minutes

Relevance to the Indian Contract Act of 1872

To be considered a valid contract under Section 10, it must involve free consent, lawful consideration, and a lawful object. The Act clarifies that this provision does not override specific formalities mandated by other Indian laws for certain contracts.

The contract becomes voidable in the occurrence of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, subject to the discretion of the party against whom these actions were directed. Section 19 of the Contract Act not only empowers the aggrieved party with the option to declare the contract voidable but also restricts the party responsible for such actions from seeking to void the contract. This provision effectively closes the door for the party benefiting from the wrongful act to declare the contract voidable.

Furthermore, the latter part of Section 19 provides an additional advantage to the aggrieved party by allowing them to pursue the performance of the contract despite the presence of fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the aggrieved party has the choice to either void the contract or insist on its proper execution. This provision serves a commendable objective, aiming to offer adequate relief to the party harmed by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. This stance is exemplified in illustration (c) to Section 19 of the Contract Act, which grants the party affected by the wrongful act the option to either void the contract or demand its execution while preventing the wrongdoer from deriving benefits.

When a court determines that fraud or misrepresentation led to the formation of a contract by concealing a mutually destructive clause that allows the insurer to evade liability while exploiting the consumer, the court should grant appropriate relief.

Fraud, as defined in the Act, includes presenting untrue facts, actively concealing information, making false promises, and engaging in acts designed to deceive. The explanation distinguishes mere silence from fraud unless circumstances necessitate disclosure. Misrepresentation, another ground for voidability, encompasses positive assertions not warranted by information, breaches of duty, and innocent mistakes inducing prejudice.

Voidability arises when consent is influenced by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation. The aggrieved party can choose to void the contract or insist on performance, except when the means of discovering the truth were available with ordinary diligence. The Act's Sections 17, 18, and 19 empower the aggrieved party with these options and restrict the wrongdoer from voiding the contract.

The Act's nuanced approach allows the court to grant appropriate relief, ensuring that a party harmed by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation can either void the contract or demand its execution. This legal framework serves to maintain fairness and integrity in contractual relationships, particularly crucial in contexts like insurance where disclosure of material facts is paramount.

Decoding “Fraud” and “Misrepresentation”

Fraud

'Fraud' encompasses the following actions:

1. Presenting as a fact something that is untrue, by someone who does not believe it to be true.

2. Actively concealing a fact by someone who has knowledge or belief of that fact.

3. Making a promise without any intention of fulfilling it.

4. Engaging in any other act designed to deceive.

5. Committing an act or omission that the law specifically declares as fraudulent.

Mere silence about facts that could impact a person's willingness to enter into a contract is not considered fraud, unless the circumstances necessitate the person keeping silent to speak, or unless the silence itself is equivalent to speech given the context of the case.

Misrepresentation

'Misrepresentation' encompasses the following:

1. The positive assertion, not warranted by the information of the person making it, of something not true, even if believed to be true.

2. Any breach of duty that, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage for the person committing it or anyone claiming under them, by misleading another to their prejudice or the prejudice of anyone claiming under them.

3. Innocently causing a party to an agreement to make a mistake about the substance of the thing that is the subject of the agreement.

Duty of Disclosure: The passage emphasizes the duty of the assured to disclose material facts relevant to the insurance risk. Failure to do so, whether intentional or due to a mistake, may be considered a fraud that makes the contract voidable.

Good Faith: The principle of good faith is crucial in insurance contracts. Both parties are expected to deal with each other honestly and fairly. Withholding information that could impact the underwriter's decision is a violation of this principle.

Concealment as Fraud: The passage notes that the concealment of material facts, even if unintentional, can be considered a fraud. This is because it has the potential to mislead the underwriter about the nature of the risk being insured.

Effect on the Validity of the Policy: If material facts are not disclosed, and this results in a difference in the actual risk compared to what was understood at the time of the agreement, the policy may be voidable. The innocent party (the underwriter) has the option to void the contract due to the lack of full disclosure.

In the Nutshell

If someone is pressured, deceived, or misled into agreeing to a contract, they have the option to cancel the contract. This is especially true if the agreement was influenced by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation. If fraud or misrepresentation led to one party's agreement, that party can either demand that the contract be carried out or choose to cancel it.

However, it's important to note that not all cases of fraud or misrepresentation make a contract voidable. If the deceived party could have discovered the truth by being more diligent, the contract may not be voidable. For instance, if someone lies about a property being free from debt, and the other person could have found out the truth with normal effort, the contract might not be cancelable.