The Conundrum of Reliance and Estoppel

I'm completely flummoxed by Section 62 of the Contract Act. Isn't it contradictory when it says that a person who has relied on a statement made under a misapprehension of fact is not entitled to compensation, but then Section 27 says that a contract is voidable if the consent was induced by undue influence? It's like they're two different beasts. I mean, how can the court say that a person's reliance is irrelevant if they were misinformed about the facts, but then hold someone's consent as voidable if they were coerced? Am I missing something here? Or is it just me who's got their head in a spin?