Chp 5 - Analysis and Interpretation

8/12/2019 Chp 5 - Analysis and Interpretation

1/32

38

Chapter 5

Analysis and Interpretation of Responses ofthe Respondents

5.1 Background of the Problem

5.2 Research Design

5.3 Personal Information of the Respondents

5.4 Qualitative Parameters for Performance Indicators of Insurance Companies


2/32

39

5.1 Background of Problem:

Liberalisation of insurance sector and subsequent entry of local and foreign players in the

sector has posed new challenges and opened up new frontiers for the India insurance sector. The

number of private life insurance players in the sector has increased to 22 (December 2009) and many

new proposals are waiting in pipeline. With limited insurance density and insurance penetration in

India, it would be interesting to critically evaluate the prospects of and challenges for private

insurance companies in the sector. Against this background, it is worthwhile to critically evaluate the

role and performance of private insurance players in the sector under the title Critical Review of

Private Life Insurance Companies in India.

5.2 Research Design:

(A) Selection of Sample: Considering the data need, the researcher has made use of purposive randomsampling technique because it is necessary to seek responses from only those respondents who own life

insurance policies of both private companies as well as Life Insurance Company of India (LIC).

Although responses of respondents for Life Insurance Corporation of India have not been considered,

they serve as a benchmark for comparing performance of various private life insurance companies. The

researcher has selected 12 private life insurance companies in the ascending order of their dates of

registration with IRDA and market share. These companies have been coded on the basis of their

first letter of the name for simplification.

Table 5.1

Coding of Private Life Insurance Companies Selected for the Purpose of Present Study

Sr. No. Name of the Company Codes

1. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd. A2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. B13. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. B24. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. H5. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. I16. ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Private Ltd. I27. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. K8. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) L9. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. M110. MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd. M2
http://www.avivaindia.com/http://www.allianzbajaj.co.in/http://www.birlasunlife.com/http://www.iciciprulife.com/http://www.ingvysyalife.com/http://www.omkotakmahindra.com/http://www.maxnewyorklife.com/http://www.metlife.co.in/http://www.metlife.co.in/http://www.maxnewyorklife.com/http://www.omkotakmahindra.com/http://www.ingvysyalife.com/http://www.iciciprulife.com/http://www.birlasunlife.com/http://www.allianzbajaj.co.in/http://www.avivaindia.com/


3/32

40

11. Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. R12. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. S

Source:Field Survey.

Table 5.2

Number of Respondents and Number of Policies Owned by Them

Sr.

No.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Private Life Insurance Companies

No. of

Respondents

No. of

Policies

Total No. of

Respondents

No. of

Policies

Total

1. 4 1 4 146 1 1462. 65 2 130 63 2 1263. 142 3 426 72 3 2164. 12 4 48 28 4 1125. 86 5 430 - 5 -6. 309 - 1038 309 - 600

Source:Field survey.

(B) Five Point Likerts Scale:A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaire

and is the most widely used scale in survey research. The researcher has used Likerts Five Point Scale

for the evaluation of twelve private life insurance companies selected for analysis and ranking. The Five

points beingExcellent, Good, Satisfactory, Average and Poor.

(C) Ranking of Parameters: The scores obtained on the basis of above weightage have been

used for the ranking private life insurance companies. The highest score has been assigned first

rank and the next highest has been assigned second rank and so on.
http://www.reliancelife.com/http://www.sbilife.co.in/http://www.sbilife.co.in/http://www.reliancelife.com/


4/32

41

5.3 Personal Information of Respondents:

1. Distribution of Respondents by their Gender:Table 5.3

Gender-wise Distribution of Respondents

Gender No. of Responses Percentage

Male 478 80.0

Female 122 20.0

Total 600 100.0


80% of the respondents (478/600) who were interviewed were males. Remaining 20% of the respondents (122/600) were females.

2. Distribution of Respondents as per their Educational Qualifications:Table 5.4

Educational Qualification-wise Distribution of Respondents

Educational Level No. of Responses Percentage

SSC 65 11.0

HSC 144 24.0

Graduate 228 38.0

Post-Graduate 163 27.0

Total 600 100.0


11% of the respondents were educated up to matriculation. 24% of the respondents were educated up to HSC. 38% of the respondents were graduates. 27% of them were post-graduates.

There is no relation between literacy level and buying of insurance products. It was found during

the survey that popularity of insurance products is more dependent upon level of economic

development in any country. More the level of economic development more is the popularity of

insurance products.


5/32

42

3. Distribution of Respondents by their Occupation:Table 5.5

Occupation-wise Distribution of Respondents

Occupation No. of Responses Percentage

Employed 265 44.0

Self-Employed 123 21.0

Business 165 27.0

Housewife 12 2.0

Retired 4 0.6

Student 2 0.4

Others (Please specify) 29 5.0

Total 600 100.0


44% of the respondents were employees. 21% of the respondents were self-employed 27% of the respondents had their own business. 2% of the respondents were housewives. 0.6% of the respondents were retired. 0.4% of the respondents were students and 29% of them were in other categories.

4. Distribution of Respondents as per their Income Group:Table 5.6

Income-wise Distribution of Respondents

Income Level No. of Responses Percentage

Dependents 15 2.5

Less than Rs. 10000 p.m. 16 3.0

Rs. 10000Rs. 25000 p.m. 309 51.5

Rs. 25000Rs. 50000 p.m. 189 31.5

Rs. 50000Rs. 1 lakh p.m. 26 4.0

More than Rs.1 lakh p.m. 45 7.5

Total 600 100.0


2.5 of the respondents were dependents.


6/32

43

3% of the respondents had a monthly income of less than Rs. 10000. 51.5% of the respondents earned between Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 p.m., while 31.5 % of

them earned between Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000 p.m.

4% of them had income between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,00 p.m. and 7.5% earned more than 1lakh p.m.

The above data clearly indicates that most of the respondents have their monthly

income between Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month. Together these respondents constitute 83%

of the sample.

5. Distribution of Respondents as per their Age Groups (in years):Table 5.7

Age-wise Distribution of Respondents

Age Group No. of Responses Percentage

18-25 42 7.0

26-35 169 28.0

36-45 247 41.0

46-55 89 15.0

55-65 51 8.5

Above 65 2 0.5

600 100.0


7% of the respondents were in the age group of 18-25 years. 28% of the respondents were in the age group of 26-35 years. 41% of the respondents were in the age group of 36-45 years. 15% of the respondents were in the age group of 46-55 years. 9% of the respondents were above the age of 55 years.

69% of the respondents are in the age group of 26 to 45 years. This is the age group which

require more need for insurance in order to secure their future. 15% of the respondents are in the

age group of 45 to 55 years of age. Thus, most of the respondents are in the working age group

when they have need and capacity to secure their future through insurance.


7/32

44

5.4 Qualitative Parameters for Performance Indicators of Insurance

Companies:

Qualitative criteria have been evaluated on the basis of Likerts Five Point Grading

Scale. Each response has been assigned specific marks so as to arrive at objective conclusions at the

end of the analysis: Excellent (E) - 5 marks, Good (G) - 4 marks, Satisfactory (S) - 3 marks, Average

(A) - 2 marks and Poor (P) 1 mark. No option has been allotted 0 marks because poor rating

doesnt mean complete absence of facility. Thus, Pooroption has been given 1 mark. The responsesso obtained have been multiplied by suitable weights as: Excellent 5, Good 4, Satisfactory 3,

Average2 and Poor1 and aggregations so obtained has been used for arriving at the final ranking.

Q.1. How do you rate the network of branches of:

Table 5.8(A)Responses Generated on Network of Branches

Responses L A B1 B2 H I1 I2 K M1 M2 R S T

Excellent 212 6 26 14 16 36 2 18 17 10 21 42 14

Good 367 10 14 10 8 14 12 12 12 2 18 8 6

Satisfactory 21 21 10 12 18 - 4 14 10 12 11 - 19

Average - 7 - 14 8 - 18 6 4 18 - - 11

Poor - 6 - - - - 14 - 7 8 - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


The above table indicates that the of the 50 respondents from Aviva Life Insurance

Company, 6 have rated its branch network to be excellent, 10 have rated it to be good, 21 have rated

it to be satisfactory, 7 have rated it to be average and 6 have rated it to be poor. Similarly, of the 50

respondents from Bajaj Allianz, 26 have rated its branch network to be excellent, 14 have rated it to

be good and remaining 10 have rated it to be satisfactory. Similarly the ratings of the other 10 private

life insurance companies can be interpreted from the above table.

The following table clearly indicates that SBI Life Insurance has scored highest marks of

242 and therefore has been awarded 1strank, then ICICI Prudential Life Insurance has scored 236

and has been awarded 2ndranks and so on.


8/32

45

Table 5.8(B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Network of Branches

Responses A B1 B2 H I1 I2 K M1 M2 R S T

Excellent 30 130 70 80 180 10 90 85 50 105 210 70

Good 40 56 40 32 56 48 48 48 8 72 32 24Satisfactory 63 30 36 54 - 12 42 30 36 33 - 57

Average 14 - 28 16 - 36 12 8 36 - - 22

Poor 6 - - - - 14 - 7 8 - - -

Total 153 216 174 182 236 120 192 178 138 210 242 173

Rank 10 3 8 6 2 12 5 7 11 4 1 9


Figur e 5.21 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Network of Branches

153

216

174

182

236

120

192

178

138

210

242

173

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 1

Rank 4

Rank 11

Rank 7

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 3

Rank 10 153

216

174

182

236

120

192

178

138

210

242

173

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 1

Rank 4

Rank 11

Rank 7

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 3

Rank 10


9/32

46

Q.2. How do you rate the infrastructure at the branches of:

Table 5.9 (A)

Responses Generated on Infrastructure at Branch


Excellent 38 12 14 23 29 45 6 32 7 13 23 21 26

Good 312 7 12 12 12 5 12 12 12 10 10 22 18

Satisfactory 250 21 24 15 9 - 28 6 26 27 17 7 6

Average - 10 - - - - 4 - 5 - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.9 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Infrastructure at Branch


Excellent 60 70 115 145 225 30 160 35 65 115 105 130

Good 28 48 48 48 20 48 48 48 40 40 88 72

Satisfactory 63 72 45 27 - 84 18 78 81 51 21 18

Average 20 - - - - 8 - 10 - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 171 190 208 220 245 170 226 171 186 206 214 220

Rank 10.5 8 6 3.5 1 12 2 10.5 9 7 5 3.5Source:Field Survey.


10/32

47

F igur e 5.23 Ranki ng of Private L ICs on the basis of I nf rastructure at Branch

Q.3. How do you rate the time taken for processing a new policy by:

Table 5.10(A)

Responses Generated on Time taken for Issue of New Policy


Excellent 28 18 21 34 34 42 12 31 16 15 39 21 14

Good 378 12 14 16 12 8 22 12 17 16 4 19 26

Satisfactory 194 20 15 - 4 - 12 7 17 19 7 10 10

Average - - - - - - 4 - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Generally, all private companies as well as LIC take 3 working days to process a request for newlife insurance policies.

171

190

208

220

245

170

226

171

186

206

214

220

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 3.5

Rank 5

Rank 7

Rank 9

Rank 10.5

Rank 2

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 3.5

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 10.5 171

190

208

220

245

170

226

171

186

206

214

220

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 3.5

Rank 5

Rank 7

Rank 9

Rank 10.5

Rank 2

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 3.5

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 10.5


11/32

48

Table 5.10(B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Time taken for Issue of New Policy


Excellent 90 105 170 170 210 60 155 80 75 195 105 70

Good 48 56 64 48 32 88 48 68 64 16 76 104Satisfactory 60 45 - 12 - 36 21 51 57 21 30 30

Average - - - - - 8 - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 198 206 234 230 242 192 224 199 196 232 211 204

Rank 10 7 2 4 1 12 5 9 11 3 6 8


Figur e 5.25 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Time taken for I ssue of

New Policy

198

206

234

230

242

192

224

199

196

232

211

204

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 8

Rank 6

Rank 3

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 7

Rank 10 198

206

234

230

242

192

224

199

196

232

211

204

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 8

Rank 6

Rank 3

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 7

Rank 10


12/32

49

Q.4. How do you rate the time taken for settlement of claim:

Table 5.11 (A)

Responses Generated on Time taken for Settlement of Claims


Excellent 187 - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 -

Good 109 - - 1 3 - - 2 - - - - 2

Satisfactory - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No

Comment

304 50 50 49 47 48 50 48 49 50 50 47 48

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.11 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Time taken for Settlement of Claims


Excellent - - - - 10 - - - - - 15 -

Good - - 4 12 - - 8 - - - - 8

Satisfactory - - - - - - - 3 - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 0 0 4 12 10 0 8 3 0 0 15 8

Rank 0 0 6 2 3 0 4.5 7 0 0 1 4.5



13/32

50

Figur e 5.26 Ranki ng of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of T ime taken f or Settlement

of Claims

Q.5. How do you rate the ability of your life insurance company to update you on policy status

and other information?

Table 5.12 (A)

Responses Generated on Updates on Policy Status and Other Information


Excellent 542 38 45 48 44 50 32 50 42 38 44 40 29

Good 58 4 5 2 6 - 4 - 6 10 6 8 12

Satisfactory - 8 - - - - 14 - 2 2 - 2 9

Average - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


0

0

4

12

10

0

8

3

0

0

15

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 4.5

Rank 1

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 7

Rank 4.5

Rank 0

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 0

Rank 00

0

4

12

10

0

8

3

0

0

15

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 4.5

Rank 1

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 7

Rank 4.5

Rank 0

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 0

Rank 0


14/32

51

Table 5.12 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Updates on Policy Status & Other Information


Excellent 190 225 240 220 250 160 250 210 190 220 200 145

Good 16 20 8 24 - 16 - 24 40 24 32 48Satisfactory 24 - - - - 42 - 6 6 - 6 27

Average - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 230 245 248 244 250 218 250 240 236 244 238 220

Rank 10 4 3 5.5 1.5 12 1.5 7 9 5.5 8 11


Figur e 5.28 Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Updates on Policy Status and

Other I nformation

230

245

248

244

250

218

250

240

236

244

238

220

200 210 220 230 240 250 260

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 11

Rank 8

Rank 5.5

Rank 9

Rank 7

Rank 1.5

Rank 12

Rank 1.5

Rank 5.5

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 10 230

245

248

244

250

218

250

240

236

244

238

220

200 210 220 230 240 250 260

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 11

Rank 8

Rank 5.5

Rank 9

Rank 7

Rank 1.5

Rank 12

Rank 1.5

Rank 5.5

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 10


15/32

52

Q.6. How do you rate the approach of staff towards their clients? (In terms of politeness and

courtesy)

Table 5.13 (A)

Responses Generated on Approach of Staff towards Clients


Excellent 24 12 24 31 42 44 18 23 26 23 29 33 26

Good 65 4 12 11 8 6 12 14 23 12 21 15 14

Satisfactory 241 34 14 8 - - 16 12 1 14 - 2 8

Average 270 - - - - - 4 1 - 1 - - 2

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.13 B

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Approach of Staff towards Clients


Excellent 60 120 155 210 220 90 115 130 115 145 165 130

Good 16 48 44 32 24 48 56 92 48 84 60 56

Satisfactory 102 42 24 - - 48 36 3 42 - 6 24

Average - - - - - 8 2 - 2 - - 4

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 178 210 223 242 244 194 209 225 207 229 231 214Rank 12 8 6 2 1 11 9 5 10 4 3 7



16/32

53

F igur e 5.30 Ranking of Private L ICs on the basis of Approach of Staff

towards Clients

Q.7. How do you rate the awareness among staff about their work? (In terms of knowledge of

procedures and products)

Table 5.14 (A)

Responses Generated on Awareness about Work


Excellent 24 42 38 46 43 44 36 48 38 36 44 34 41

Good 234 8 12 4 7 6 10 2 12 10 4 16 8

Satisfactory 159 - - - - - 4 - - 4 2 - 1

Average 113 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor 70 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


178

210

223

242

244

194

209

225

207

229

231

214

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 10

Rank 5

Rank 9

Rank 11

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 12 178

210

223

242

244

194

209

225

207

229

231

214

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 10

Rank 5

Rank 9

Rank 11

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 8

Rank 12


17/32

54

Table 5.14 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Awareness about Work


Excellent 210 190 230 215 220 180 240 190 180 220 170 205

Good 32 48 16 28 24 40 8 48 40 16 64 32Satisfactory - - - - - 12 - - 12 6 - 3

Average - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 242 238 246 243 244 232 248 238 232 242 234 240

Rank 5.5 8.5 2 4 3 11.5 1 8.5 11.5 5.5 10 7


F igur e 5.31 Ranki ng of Pr ivate LI Cs on the basis of Awareness about Work

242

238

246

243

244

232

248

238

232

242

234

240

220 225 230 235 240 245 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7

Rank 10

Rank 5.5

Rank 11.5

Rank 8.5

Rank 1

Rank 11.5

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 8.5

Rank 5.5 242

238

246

243

244

232

248

238

232

242

234

240

220 225 230 235 240 245 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7

Rank 10

Rank 5.5

Rank 11.5

Rank 8.5

Rank 1

Rank 11.5

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 8.5

Rank 5.5


18/32

55

Q.8. How do you rate the agents of?(In terms of number)

Table 5.15 (A)

Responses Generated on Number of Agents


Excellent 445 12 31 32 24 41 10 36 21 24 29 33 19

Good 71 4 8 12 21 9 6 4 7 12 15 16 12

Satisfactory 84 18 6 6 5 - 4 10 5 14 6 1 6

Average - 6 5 - - - 5 - 3 - - - 13

Poor - 10 - - - - 25 - 14 - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.15 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Number of Agents


Excellent 60 155 160 120 205 50 180 105 120 145 165 95

Good 16 32 48 84 36 24 16 28 48 60 64 48

Satisfactory 54 18 18 15 - 12 30 15 42 18 3 18

Average 12 10 - - - 10 - 6 - - - 26

Poor 10 - - - - 25 - 14 - - - -

Total 152 215 226 219 241 121 226 168 210 223 232 187

Rank 11 7 3.5 6 1 12 3.5 10 8 5 2 9



19/32

56

F igur e 5.33 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Number of Agents

Q.9. How do you rate the agents in terms of Information and knowledge? (About products and

policies of the company)

Table 5.16 (A)

Responses Generated on Information and Knowledge of Agents


Excellent 445 42 42 44 48 50 41 39 46 44 49 47 41

Good 71 8 8 6 2 - 9 11 4 6 1 3 9

Satisfactory 84 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


152

215

226

219

241

121

226

168

210

223

232

187

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 2

Rank 5

Rank 8

Rank 10

Rank 3.5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 6

Rank 3.5

Rank 7

Rank 11 152

215

226

219

241

121

226

168

210

223

232

187

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 2

Rank 5

Rank 8

Rank 10

Rank 3.5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 6

Rank 3.5

Rank 7

Rank 11


20/32

57

Table 5.16 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Information and Knowledge of Agents


Excellent 210 210 220 240 250 205 195 230 220 245 235 205

Good 32 32 24 8 - 36 44 16 24 4 12 36Satisfactory - - - - - - - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 242 242 244 248 250 241 239 246 244 249 247 241

Rank 8.5 8.5 6.5 3 1 10.5 12 5 6.5 2 4 10.5


Figure 5.34 Ranking of Pr ivate LICs on the basis of I nformation and Knowledge

of Agents

242

242

244

248

250

241

239

246

244

249

247

241

232 234 236 238 240 242 244 246 248 250 252

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 10.5

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 6.5

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 10.5

Rank 1

Rank 3

Rank 6.5

Rank 8.5

Rank 8.5 242

242

244

248

250

241

239

246

244

249

247

241

232 234 236 238 240 242 244 246 248 250 252

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 10.5

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 6.5

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 10.5

Rank 1

Rank 3

Rank 6.5

Rank 8.5

Rank 8.5


21/32

58

Q.10. How do you rate the services provided by the agents?(Door-to-door service for clients)

Table 5.17 (A)

Responses Generated on Services of Agents


Excellent 32 42 48 46 41 44 38 39 36 35 44 46 41

Good 421 8 2 4 9 6 12 11 14 15 6 4 9

Satisfactory 147 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.17 B

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Services of AgentsResponses A B1 B2 H I1 I2 K M1 M2 R S T

Excellent 210 240 230 205 220 190 195 180 175 220 230 205

Good 32 8 16 36 24 48 44 56 60 24 16 36

Satisfactory - - - - - - - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 242 248 246 241 244 238 239 236 235 244 246 241

Rank 6 1 2.5 7.5 4.5 10 9 11 12 4.5 2.5 7.5



22/32

59

F igure 5.35 Ranki ng of Pr ivate L ICs on the basis of Services of Agents

Q.11. How do you rate the web-site of the life insurance company?(In terms of accessibility and

services)

Table 5.18 (A)

Responses Generated on Web-Site of the Life Insurance Company


Excellent 64 38 38 33 50 36 29 34 29 31 48 44 36

Good 397 9 6 7 - 8 12 6 6 8 2 6 2

Satisfactory 139 3 6 10 - 6 9 10 10 11 - - 12

Average - - - - - - - - 5 - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


242

248

246

241

244

238

239

236

235

244

246

241

225 230 235 240 245 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7.5

Rank 2.5

Rank 4.5

Rank 12

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 10

Rank 4.5

Rank 7.5

Rank 2.5

Rank 1

Rank 6 242

248

246

241

244

238

239

236

235

244

246

241

225 230 235 240 245 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7.5

Rank 2.5

Rank 4.5

Rank 12

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 10

Rank 4.5

Rank 7.5

Rank 2.5

Rank 1

Rank 6


23/32

60

Table 5.18 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of their Web-Site


Excellent 190 190 165 250 180 145 170 145 155 240 220 180

Good 36 24 28 - 32 48 24 24 32 8 24 8Satisfactory 9 18 30 - 18 27 30 30 33 - - 36

Average - - - - - - - 10 - - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 235 232 223 250 230 220 224 209 220 248 244 224

Rank 4 5 9 1 6 10.5 7.5 12 10.5 2 3 7.5


F igur e 5.36 Ranki ng of Pr ivate LI Cs on the basis of their Web-Site

235

232

223

250

230

220

224

209

220

248

244

224

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7.5

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 10.5

Rank 12

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5

Rank 6

Rank 1

Rank 9

Rank 5

Rank 4 235

232

223

250

230

220

224

209

220

248

244

224

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 7.5

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 10.5

Rank 12

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5

Rank 6

Rank 1

Rank 9

Rank 5

Rank 4


24/32

61

Q.12. How do you rate the customer relations of?

Table 5.19 (A)

Responses Generated on Customer Relations


Excellent 123 16 24 12 24 28 - 19 16 14 28 24 22

Good 246 21 16 18 8 14 32 12 14 12 10 8 6

Satisfactory 145 7 7 12 12 8 4 19 18 19 9 18 14

Average 36 6 3 8 6 - 1 - 2 5 3 - 8

Poor 50 - - - - - 13 - - - - - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.19 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Customer Relations


Excellent 80 120 60 120 140 - 95 80 70 140 120 110

Good 84 64 72 32 56 128 48 56 48 40 32 24

Satisfactory 21 21 36 36 24 12 57 54 57 27 54 42

Average 12 6 16 12 - 2 - 4 10 6 - 16

Poor - - - - - 13 - - - - - -

Total 197 211 184 200 220 155 200 194 185 213 206 192

Rank 7 3 11 5.5 1 12 5.5 8 10 2 4 9



25/32

62

Figur e 5.38 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Customer Relati ons

Q.13. How do you rate call centre services of:(In terms of utility to clients)

Table 5.20 (A)

Responses Generated on Call Centre Service


Excellent - 20 22 6 31 19 2 20 8 8 28 21 12

Good - 4 2 21 8 4 14 - 18 10 1 4 18

Satisfactory 240 16 14 2 11 6 14 24 9 17 8 13 15

Average 121 7 7 13 - 21 6 2 12 6 9 9 -

Poor 34 - - 5 - - 8 - - 5 - - -

No

Comment

205 3 5 3 - - 6 4 3 4 4 3 5

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


197

211

184

200

220

155

200

194

185

213

206

192

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 10

Rank 8

Rank 5.5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 5.5

Rank 11

Rank 3

Rank 7 197

211

184

200

220

155

200

194

185

213

206

192

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 10

Rank 8

Rank 5.5

Rank 12

Rank 1

Rank 5.5

Rank 11

Rank 3

Rank 7


26/32

63

Table 5.20 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Call Centre Service


Excellent 100 110 30 155 95 10 100 40 40 140 105 60

Good 16 8 84 32 16 56 - 72 40 4 16 72Satisfactory 48 42 6 33 18 42 72 27 51 24 39 45

Average 14 14 26 - 42 12 4 24 12 18 18 -

Poor - - 5 - - 8 - - 5 - - -

Total 178 174 151 220 171 128 176 163 148 186 178 177

Rank 3.5 7 10 1 8 12 6 9 11 2 3.5 5


Figur e 5.39 Ranki ng of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Cal l Centre Service

178

174

151

220

171

128

176

163

148

186

178

177

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 5

Rank 3.5

Rank 2

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 6

Rank 12

Rank 8

Rank 1

Rank 10

Rank 7

Rank 3.5 178

174

151

220

171

128

176

163

148

186

178

177

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 5

Rank 3.5

Rank 2

Rank 11

Rank 9

Rank 6

Rank 12

Rank 8

Rank 1

Rank 10

Rank 7

Rank 3.5


27/32

64

Q.14. How do you rate the response of the life insurance company in handling customer

grievances?

Table 5.21 (A)

Responses Generated on Ability to Handle Customer Grievances


Excellent 18 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good 37 - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 1 2

Satisfactory 64 2 3 1 - 2 - - - - - - -

Average 36 - - - - - - - - 1 - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No

Comment

445 48 46 49 50 48 50 50 50 48 50 49 48

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.21 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Ability to Handle Customer Grievances


Excellent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good - 4 - - - - - - 4 - 4 8

Satisfactory 6 9 3 - 6 - - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - - - 2 - - -

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 6 13 3 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 4 8

Rank 4 1 7 - 4 - - - 4 - 6 2



28/32

65

Figure 5.40 Ranking of Pr ivate LICs on the basis of Abili ty to Handle Customer

Grievances

Q.15. How do you rate the returns provided by the life insurance company on your investment?

(More than expected returns means excellent)

Table 5.22 (A)Responses Generated on Rate of Returns


Excellent 140 - - - 4 16 - 14 6 4 12 8 5

Good 259 12 21 22 19 12 6 21 12 6 8 9 11

Satisfactory 101 18 22 23 14 17 10 12 18 21 22 18 17

Average 68 9 4 - 10 - 12 - 6 4 6 13 7

Poor 32 5 - - - - 14 - 2 12 - - 4

Cant Say - 6 3 5 3 5 8 3 6 3 2 2 6

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50Source:Field Survey.

6

13

3

0

6

0

0

0

6

0

4

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 0

Rank 4

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 4

Rank 0

Rank 7

Rank 1

Rank 4 6

13

3

0

6

0

0

0

6

0

4

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 2

Rank 6

Rank 0

Rank 4

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 0

Rank 4

Rank 0

Rank 7

Rank 1

Rank 4


29/32

66

Table 5.22 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Rate of Returns


Excellent - - - 20 80 - 70 30 20 60 40 25

Good 48 84 88 76 48 24 84 48 24 32 36 44Satisfactory 54 66 69 42 51 30 36 54 63 66 54 51

Average 18 8 - 20 - 24 - 12 8 12 26 14

Poor 5 - - - - 14 - 2 12 - - 4

Total 125 158 157 158 179 92 190 146 127 170 156 138

Rank 11 4.5 6 4.5 2 12 1 8 10 3 7 9


F igur e 5.41 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Rate of Returns

125

158

157

158

179

92

190

146

127

170

156

138

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 7

Rank 3

Rank 10

Rank 8

Rank 1

Rank 12

Rank 2

Rank 4.5

Rank 6

Rank 4.5

Rank 11 125

158

157

158

179

92

190

146

127

170

156

138

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 9

Rank 7

Rank 3

Rank 10

Rank 8

Rank 1

Rank 12

Rank 2

Rank 4.5

Rank 6

Rank 4.5

Rank 11


30/32

67

Q.16. How do you rate the safety and security provided by the life insurance company?(Quick

and timely settlement of claims means excellent safety and security)

Table 5.23 (A)

Responses Generated on Degree of Safety and Security


Excellent 445 6 2 8 3 6 1 5 2 4 6 7 2

Good 68 14 18 6 14 17 12 6 13 14 18 17 15

Satisfactory 87 10 14 16 13 11 19 18 18 12 14 16 12

Average - 12 11 14 18 11 16 14 16 18 10 10 21

Poor - - - - - 5 - - 1 2 1 - -

Cant Say - 8 5 6 2 - 2 7 - - 1 - -

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


Table 5.23 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Degree of Safety and Security


Excellent 30 10 40 15 30 5 25 10 20 30 35 10

Good 56 72 24 56 68 48 24 52 56 72 68 60

Satisfactory 30 42 48 39 33 57 54 54 36 42 48 36

Average 24 22 28 36 22 32 28 32 36 20 20 42

Poor - - - - 5 - - 1 2 1 - -

Total 140 146 140 146 158 142 131 149 150 165 171 148

Rank 10.5 7.5 10.5 7.5 3 9 12 5 4 2 1 6



31/32

68

F igure 5.42 Ranki ng of Private L ICs on the basis of Degree of Safety and

Security

Q.17. How do you rate the variety of products offered by the life insurance company? (More the

variety means excellent rating)

Table 5.24 (A)

Responses Generated on Variety of Products


Excellent 444 20 24 17 18 18 12 15 18 12 21 16 17

Good 126 1 19 6 16 21 13 13 4 10 20 17 2

Satisfactory 30 10 7 8 14 8 9 9 14 6 8 14 18

Average - 11 - 14 - - 11 9 12 14 - - 9

Poor - 2 - - - - - - - 4 - - -

No

Comment

6 - 5 2 3 5 4 2 4 1 3 4

Total 600 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50


140

146

140

146

158

142

131

149

150

165

171

148

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 6

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 9

Rank 3

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5 140

146

140

146

158

142

131

149

150

165

171

148

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 6

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 12

Rank 9

Rank 3

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5

Rank 7.5

Rank 10.5


32/32

Table 5.24 (B)

Ranking of Private LICs on the basis of Variety of Products


Excellent 100 120 85 90 90 60 75 90 60 105 80 85

Good 4 76 24 64 63 52 52 16 40 80 68 8Satisfactory 30 21 24 42 24 27 27 42 18 24 42 54

Average 22 - 28 - - 22 18 24 28 - - 18

Poor 2 - - - - - - - 4 - - -

Total 158 217 161 196 177 161 172 172 150 209 190 165

Rank 11 1 9.5 3 5 9.5 6.5 6.5 12 2 4 8


Figur e 5.43 Ranking of Pri vate L ICs on the basis of Variety of Products

_____________________

158

217

161

196

177

161

172

172

150

209

190

165

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 8

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 12

Rank 6.5

Rank 6.5

Rank 9.5

Rank 5

Rank 3

Rank 9.5

Rank 1

Rank 11 158

217

161

196

177

161

172

172

150

209

190

165

0 50 100 150 200 250

A

B1

B2

H

I1

I2

K

M1

M2

R

S

T Rank 8

Rank 4

Rank 2

Rank 12

Rank 6.5

Rank 6.5

Rank 9.5

Rank 5

Rank 3

Rank 9.5

Rank 1

Rank 11

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nikhil-jain
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Chp 5 - Analysis and Interpretation

Documents