http://www.projectscollege.blogspot.com

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF [COMPANY NAME]

ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY WITH ITS INDUSTRIAL

COMPETITORS

By

[STUDENT NAME]

(Reg. no. )

Of

[COLLEGE NAME]

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to the

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree

Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[UNIVERSITY NAME]

[PLACE]

[YEAR]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No CHAPTERS PAGE. NO.

Abstract I

List of tables II

List of figures IV

CHAPTER – 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Industry Profile 1

1.2 Company Profile 7

1.3 Product Profile 9

CHAPTER – 2: DEVELOPMENT OF MAIN THEME

2.1 Need of the study 13

2.2 Objectives of the study 14

2.3 Scope of the study 15

2.4 Limitations of the study 16

2.5 Review of Literature 17

CHAPTER – 3: ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

3.1 Research Methodology 21

3.2 Analysis & Interpretation 26

3.3 Findings 72

3.4 Suggestions 76

3.5 Conclusion 77

APPENDIX

Questionnaire IBibliography V

ABSTRACT

This project titled as “A Comparative Study on the Performance of [COMPANY

NAME] Alliance Insurance Company with its Industrial Competitors” focuses on some

of the key issues like competitive position that [COMPANY NAME] holds, the strengths

and weaknesses of the company’s insurance schemes, consumer’s awareness, customer’s

perception etc.

The sample size for this study is 120. The research design carried out for this study is

descriptive research. Primary data are collected from the clients of various insurance

companies through a structured undisguised questionnaire. Secondary data are gathered

from the websites of [COMPANY NAME] and other companies for the purpose of

making a comparative analysis. Statistical tools like graphs, interval estimation, chi-

square test, H-test, and correlation have been used for the purpose of analysis.

The findings of the study were arrived at based on the analysis conducted. Some of the

major findings of the study relate to increased necessity of having a general insurance

cover, higher reputation enjoyed by [COMPANY NAME] and priority to have auto/car

and health insurance cover by majority of the respondents. Some of the suggestions of the

study are to make amendments in the premium rates, to maintain the promptness in the

claim settlement procedure, to introduce additional insurance covers and create more

awareness about the products.

The study is been concluded that the performance of [COMPANY NAME] is excellent in

comparison with its industrial competitors and that the company has high growth

prospects in future years to come.

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE OF TABLE PAGE NO

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

3.2.7

3.2.8

3.2.9

3.2.10

3.2.11

3.2.12

3.2.13

3.2.14

3.2.15

3.2.16

3.2.17

Age of respondents

Gender of respondents

Occupation of respondents

Number of members in a family

Annual income of respondents

Necessity of having a general insurance cover

No. of general insurance policies held by respondents

Are the general insurance policies taken from the same company

No. of companies in which respondent is a policy holder

Companies enjoying higher reputation amidst customers

Awareness among the [COMPANY NAME] customers towards insurance schemes offered by [COMPANY NAME]

Respondent’s opinion towards customer-centric products offered by [COMPANY NAME]

Respondent’s comment on the service rendered by [COMPANY NAME]

Sources by which the respondent’s became familiar of [COMPANY NAME]

Period of insurance cover held by respondents

Amount of yearly insurance premium paid by respondents.

Respondent’s comment on the yearly insurance

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

35

36

38

40

41

42

43

44

47

3.2.18

3.2.19

3.2.20

3.2.21

3.2.22

3.2.23

3.2.24

3.2.25

premium paidSatisfactory level of respondents towards the policy taken

No. of respondent’s having insurance agents

Respondent’s comment on the service rendered by insurance agents

Claims rejected by insurance companies

Factors that influences customers to choose a particular company in buying an insurance policy

Respondent’s satisfactory level towards various features of general insurance policy taken

Sources most preferred by respondents to know about an insurance company and its products

General Insurance cover that is most favored by respondents

52

57

59

61

62

64

68

69

LIST OF CHARTS

CHART NO. TITLE OF CHART PAGE NO

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

3.2.7

3.2.8

3.2.9

3.2.10

3.2.11

3.2.12

3.2.13

3.2.14

3.2.15

3.2.16

3.2.17

3.2.18

Age of respondents

Gender of respondents

Occupation of respondents

Number of members in a family

Annual income of respondents

Necessity of having a general insurance cover

No. of general insurance policies held by respondents

Are the general insurance policies taken from the same company

No. of companies in which respondent is a policy holder

Companies enjoying higher reputation amidst customers

Awareness among the [COMPANY NAME] customers towards insurance schemes offered by [COMPANY NAME]

Respondent’s opinion towards customer-centric products offered by [COMPANY NAME]

Respondent’s comment on the service rendered by [COMPANY NAME]

Sources by which the respondent’s became familiar of [COMPANY NAME]

Period of insurance cover held by respondents

Amount of yearly insurance premium paid by respondents.

Respondent’s comment on the yearly insurance premium paid

Satisfactory level of respondents towards the policy taken

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

35

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

48

53

3.2.19

3.2.20

3.2.21

3.2.22

3.2.23

3.2.24

3.2.25

No. of respondent’s having insurance agents

Respondent’s comment on the service rendered by insurance agents

Claims rejected by insurance companies

Factors that influences customers to choose a particular company in buying an insurance policy

Respondent’s satisfactory level towards various features of general insurance policy taken

Sources most preferred by respondents to know about an insurance company and its products

General Insurance cover that is most favored by respondents

57

60

61

63

65

68

71

1.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Introduction

The outlook for the general insurance industry in India is stable as per the financial

forecast that has been made. Over the medium and long term, India’s insurance market

will continue to experience major changes as its operating environment increasingly

deregulates. On the one hand, a mix of new products, new delivery system and a greater

awareness of risk will generate growth. On the other hand, the competition is expected to

remain intense as private sector insurers and those about to enter India seek to win market

share from the more established public sector entities.

In 2006-07, India’s general insurance market witnessed a variety of changes as

deregulation continued at a hectic pace. With the removal of pricing controls on fire and

engineering lies in 2007, insurers have since discounted their rates by 50% or more in

their quest to retain or win market share. Furthermore, the number of private insurers is

expected to grow as various foreign companies have announced intentions to establish

joint ventures.

History of Insurance industry

In some sense we can say that insurance appeared simultaneously with appearance of

human society. In earlier economies, we can see insurance in the form of people helping

each other. For example, if a house is burnt, the members of the community help build a

new one. Should the same thing happen to one’s neighbour, the other neighbors must

come to help? Otherwise, neighbors will not receive help in the future.

Insurance in the modern sense, started as a methods of transferring or distributing risk

were practiced by Chinese and Babylonian traders as long ago as the 3rd and 2nd

millennia BC, respectively. Chinese merchants traveling treacherous river rapids would

redistribute their cargo across many vessels to limit the loss due to any single vessel’s

capsizing. The Babylonians developed a system which was recorded in the famous Code

of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC, and practiced by early Mediterranean sailing merchants. If a

merchant received a loan to fund his shipment, he would pay the lender an additional sum

in exchange for the lender’s guarantee to cancel the loan should the shipment be stolen.

Greek monarchs were the first to insure their people and made it official by registering

the insuring process in governmental notary offices. They invented the concept of the

‘general average’. Merchants whose goods were being shipped together would pay a

proportionally divided premium which would be used to reimburse any merchant whose

goods were jettisoned during storm or sinking of the vessel in the sea.

The Greeks and Romans introduced the origins of health and life insurance c. 600 AD

when they organized guilds called “benevolent societies” which cared for the families

and paid funeral expenses of members upon death. Guilds in the middle Ages served a

similar purpose. Before insurance was established in the late 17th century, “friendly

societies” existed in England, in which people donated amounts of money to a general

sum that could be used for emergencies.

Separate insurance contracts (i.e., insurance policies not bundled with loans or other

kinds of contracts) were invented in Greeks rulers in the 14th century, as were insurance

pools backed by pledges of landed estates. These new insurance contracts allowed

insurance to be separated from investment, a separation of roles that first proved useful in

marine insurance. Insurance became far more sophisticated in post-Renaissance Europe,

and specialized varieties developed. Insurance as we know it today can be traced to the

Great Fire of London, which in 1666 A.D devoured 13,200 houses. In the aftermath of

this disaster, Nicholas Barbon opened an office to insure buildings. In 1680, he

established England’s first fire insurance company, “The Fire Office,” to insure brick and

frame homes.

The first insurance company in the United States underwrote fire insurance and was

formed in Charles Town (modern-day Charleston), South Carolina, in 1732.

Evolution of insurance industry in India –Important milestones

In India, insurance has a deep-rooted history. It finds mention in the writings of Manu

(Manusmrithi ), Yagnavalkya ( Dharmasastra ) and Kautilya ( Arthasastra ). The

writings talk in terms of pooling of resources that could be re-distributed in times of

calamities such as fire, floods, epidemics and famine. This was probably a pre-cursor to

modern day insurance. Ancient Indian history has preserved the earliest traces of

insurance in the form of marine trade loans and carriers’ contracts. Insurance in India has

evolved over time heavily drawing from other countries, England in particular

Year Event

1818 The advent of life insurance business in India with the establishment of the

Oriental Life Insurance Company in Calcutta.

1834 Oriental Life Insurance Failure

1850 The advent of General Insurance in India with the establishment of Triton

Insurance Company Ltd in Calcutta

1870 The enactment of the British Insurance Act

1907 The Indian Mercantile Insurance Ltd was set up

1912 The Indian Life Assurance Companies Act, 1912 was the first statutory

measure to regulate life business.

1928 The Indian Insurance Companies Act was enacted.

1956 Nationalization of Life Insurance Sector and Life Insurance Corporation .The

LIC absorbed 154 Indian, 16 non-Indian insurers as also 75 provident

societies.

1971 The General Insurance Corporation of India was incorporated as a company

1973 General insurance business was nationalized with effect from 1st January

1973.

107 insurers were amalgamated and grouped into four companies namely:

1) National Insurance Company Ltd.,

2) The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

3) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

4) The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

1993 The Government set up a committee under the chairmanship of RN Malhotra

former Governor of RBI to propose recommendations for reforms in the

insurance sector

2000 The IRDA was incorporated as a statutory body in April 2000.

Foreign companies were allowed ownership of up to 26%.

2000-01 Insurance Industry had 16 new entrants, 10 in Life and 6 in General Insurance

2001-03 Insurance Industry had 5 new entrants, 2 in Life and 3 in General

2003-04 Insurance Industry had 1new entrant, Sahara India Insurance Company Ltd.

In Life Insurance category

2004-05 Insurance Industry had 1new entrant, Shri Ram Insurance company Ltd. In

Life Insurance category

2005-06 Bharti Axa Life insurance company was granted Certification of Registration

in July

2006 Bharti Axa Life insurance company commenced its operations the newest

player in the insurance sector.

Evolution of Non-Life insurance in India:

The boycott of British goods and British institutions, which occurred because of the

nationalist movement, encouraged formation of Indian-owned commercial and business

houses. By 1907, the Indian mercantile the first of the long lasting general insurance

companies to be established with Indian capital, had started functioning five offices, the

New India, Vulcan, Jupiter, British India General and the Universal, were established in

1919 almost simultaneously for transacting general insurance business.

In 1928, prominent insurance men of Bombay met and formed the Indian insurance

companies association to protect the interest of Indian insurers. Leaders of the insurance

industry began to organize conferences, educate public on the benefit of insurance, focus

attention on the annual remove of national wealth through invisible export’s, and arise

public interest in favour of Indian insurance.

In 1950, the planning commission was set up to formulate plans for successive five years.

This five year plan brought about large scale economic development and increased

insurance consciousness among the people. As insurance business increased the number

of claims for compensation against losses also naturally increased. Settlement of too

many large claims meant a severe demand on the funds of insurance companies. So to

prevent this situation the practice of ‘Reinsurance’ was adopted according to which

insurers themselves reinsured portions of the insurances they had undertaken. So Indian

insurance companies with their expanding business wanted to reinsure for which they had

to seek foreign reinsurance markets.

Since the need for conserving foreign exchange was felt in India all the insurers in India

as well as foreigners operating in India formed the India Reinsurance Corporation in

1956. This corporation provided reinsurance facilities. It was compulsory for insurers in

India to reinsure a fixed percentage of their insurances with the corporation.

The Insurance Amendment Act 1950 imposed certain limitations on expenses of

management. The general insurance council constituted what was called the tariff

committee to control and regulate terms and conditions of business.

In 1972, the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act 1972 was passed under the

provisions of this act. The general insurance corporation of India was established for the

purpose of directing, controlling and caring on the general insurance business and all the

106 insurers were merged and grouped into four subsidiaries of the general insurance

corporation of India namely:

National Insurance Company Ltd., with its head office at Calcutta.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., with its head office at Bombay.

The Oriental Insurance company Ltd., with its head office at Delhi.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., with its head office at Madras.

Three Phases of De-Tariffing

India’s general insurance industry has undergone de-tariffing in three phases:

1994 -- marine cargo, personal accident, health, banker liability and aviation

2005-06 -- marine hull segment

2007 -- Fire, engineering and motor own damage (OD). However, the de-tariffing

did not immediately allow for free pricing. Instead, insurers were required to follow

the “file and use” method, whereby they were expected to file a charter of proposed

rates, which was then approved by IRDA.

The only segment that remains under a tariff regime is the third party motor business,

although there has been a large upward revision in this area’s premium rates by regulators

in recent times. Moreover, commercial third party motor business, which has traditionally

contributed to adverse claims ratios, has been moved to a common pool, resulting in loss

sharing.

Insurance sector – moving quickly

The Indian insurance sector is rapidly moving towards international standards of free

(risk-based) market pricing and new/innovative product offerings. Big changes have

occurred over the last seven years, during which the sector was opened to private

participation, but with foreign direct investment (FDI) capped at 26%. With the regulator

possibly lifting the ceiling on foreign ownership to 49%, the capacities of domestic

partners would no longer constrain capital levels for joint ventures.

In the private sector, there were nine players with Future Generali the latest entrant as of

September 2007. A number of potential new entrants await the necessary approvals. Most

private players have tie-ups with international companies to compensate for their lack of

experience in insurance. Within the private sector, ICICI Lombard (IL) leads with 12.4%

market share for the period April-December 2007. Recently, Reliance General Insurance

(RGI) as emerged as the fastest growing player, recording a 150% rise year-on-year in

gross direct premium in the first nine months of 2007-08

1.2. COMPANY PROFILE

Founded in 1954, [COMPANY NAME] is one of India's leading finance companies.

Quality in lending, transparency in transactions, outstanding customer care and an

unyielding commitment to being the best, has made [COMPANY NAME] one of the

most respected finance companies in India. [COMPANY NAME] is part of the

[RESPECTIVE COMPANY NAME] Group of companies founded by TV

[RESPECTIVE COMPANY NAME] Iyengar in the early part of last century. In the

1950s, the [RESPECTIVE COMPANY NAME] group diversified into general insurance

with the Madras Motor and General Insurance Company (MMGI).

[COMPANY NAME] Limited was started as a subsidiary of MMGI to provide customers

with a range of finance and hire-purchase options for Light, Medium & Heavy

Commercial Vehicles, Cars, Jeeps, Machinery and Equipment. It has over 50 years of

experience in operation, and is recognized as one of the most trusted and respected

NBFC's in India. The company continues to enjoy highest credit rating of AAA from

leading rating agencies in the country. [COMPANY NAME] has a Nation-wide presence

with over 167 branches, 650,000 depositors and nearly 100,000 commercial vehicle and

car finance customers.

[COMPANY NAME] is one of the most well known and oldest insurance companies in

the world, having begun its operations in 1710. With an almost 300 year heritage, RSA is

one of the world’s leading multinational quoted insurance groups. It has the capability to

write business in over 130 countries and with major operations in the UK, Scandinavia,

Canada, Ireland, Asia and the Middle East and Latin America. Focusing on general

insurance, it has around 22,000 employees and in 2007, its net written premium were

£5.8bn

[COMPANY NAME] is a joint venture between [COMPANY NAME] and Royal & Sun

Alliance and in April 2000, a letter of undertaking was signed to establish a joint venture

insurance company. On 28th August 2000 the license application was submitted to the

IRDA and the license was granted to [COMPANY NAME] on 23rd of October 2000 by

the IRDA, making it the first private insurer to obtain a license for conducting in the

Non-Life segment.

[COMPANY NAME] was formally launched as a company on 12th March 2001. Since

then the company have been innovating constantly for its customers. Like being the first

to offer cashless hospitalisation, the first to offer segment specific business solutions, first

to offer co-branded credit cards, first to introduce industry-specific proposition. Their

product range is designed to provide extra cover to a varied range of customers starting

from the common man to corporate conglomerates. The company is now in the eighth

year of operation. The shareholders of [COMPANY NAME] are as follows:

[COMPANY NAME] and Associates 74%

[COMPANY NAME] London 26%

Working from a corporate office in Chennai, [COMPANY NAME] has been carrying out

its business in over 150 cities with four fully operational Regional Centers in Chennai,

Mumbai, Guargon and Kolkata supported by a network of 35 Branch Offices. Each of

these Regional Offices is staffed by a team of insurance professionals responsible for

Customer Servicing, Business Development, Underwriting, Operations and Claims

Management.

Royal  [RESPECTIVE COMPANY NAME]  brings  the  golden  heritage  and reliability

of [COMPANY NAME] (AAA), one  of  the  most  respected  non-banking  financial

institution in India, and RSA, one of the oldest and the second largest general insurer in

the UK.

The coming together of these two financial giants allows them to offer its customers the

best global practices in insurance industry, innovation in terms of products and services,

and unmatched, personalized customer service.

1.3. PRODUCT PROFILE

Marine Insurance

[COMPANY NAME] brings to India a wide range of marine cargo products from various

international markets. Their products considerably widen the scope of coverage presently

enjoyed by the insured population without necessarily involving a high premium.

Burglary insurance

Burglary Insurance for machinery, stock in trade, furniture, fixtures & fittings and for

goods held in trust or on commission for the insured is responsible. Burglary Insurance

covers burglary or housebreaking accompanied by either forcible or violent entry

into/exit from the premises and hold-up.

Engineering Insurance:

Erection All Risks Insurance

The Erection All Risks policy is a comprehensive insurance, which provides complete

protection against all types of risks associated with erection, testing, commissioning of

machinery, plant and equipment during constructional stage.

Boiler & Pressure Plant Insurance

It covers the risk of explosion and collapse of any boiler or other pressure plant in the

course of ordinary working.

Contractor's All Risks Insurance

All types of civil engineering works, ranging from small buildings to massive dams are

exposed to damage from a wide range of causes such as fire, lightning, flood, inundation,

storm, cyclone and other accidental damages. It is a comprehensive insurance which

provides complete protection against all types of civil construction risks.

Machinery Breakdown Insurance

[COMPANY NAME] extend its hand offering Machinery Breakdown Insurance Cover

ably supported by most capable technocrats to throw more light about the mechanical

side of all machines.

Marine-Cum-Erection Insurance

It is developed as a comprehensive product to manage the risk and insurance needs in

course of erection as well as during transit. It is a combination of Erection-All-Risks and

Marine Insurance to cater to the needs of the client where Marine/Transit insurance is

connected with Erection All Risks Insurance of any project.

Contractor's Plant & Machinery

Contractor's Plant & Machinery is an exclusive all risks policy covering the plant &

machinery used by the contractors at the site for various projects. It covers the property

whether they are at work or at rest or being dismantled for the purpose of cleaning or

overhauling, or in the course of operations or when being shifted within the premises or

during subsequent re-erection, but in any case only after successful commissioning.

Liability Insurance:

Product Liability Insurance

Liability arises from a civil wrong or breach of personal duty imposed by law on a person

and owed to his/her fellow citizens. In some countries legal rights and duties are framed

in a Civil Code. In others they are not codified but drawn from the precedent of decisions

handed down in the courts over the centuries; this is known as "Common Law".

Workmen's Compensation Insurance

It provides Insurance against occupational accident or disease to an employee whilst in

course of his employment.

Public Liability Act

It provides indemnity against the Insured's liability at law to the public in general

(excluding employees) for bodily injury and loss of or damage to property due to the

business activities carried on in insured's premises.

Business solutions:

Industrial All Risks Policy

It’s a wide and comprehensive cover for the large sized business where the assets at all

locations of the insured exceed Rs.100 Corers. It is an All Risks Policy covering a wide

range of perils such as fire and allied perils, burglary, accidental damage, breakdown as

well as business interruption.

Office Shield

A flexible policy specifically designed to meet the insurance needs of your modern

office, irrespective of the number of locations.

Hotel Shield

Tailor-made cover designed to suit the specific needs of the Hotel Industry.

Enterprise Shield.

It is a newly devised package providing total insurance solutions for industries. You do

not need to analyze and evaluate a large number of insurance policies to insure your

business completely.

Education Shield

Tailor-made cover designed to suit the specific needs of Education Industry.

Traders Shield

It is an attractive policy that provides shopkeepers with a basic insurance package and a

further range of optional covers.

All Risks Policy for Portable Equipments

It offers an overall solution to cover portable items like laptops, mobiles, cameras and

projectors.

Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy

It offers cover against fire and allied perils and the perils of nature. The policy can cover

building (including plinth and foundation), plant and machinery, stocks, furniture,

fixtures and fittings and other contents.

Consequential Loss (Fire) Insurance

It provides protection against loss of profits in business due to an interruption in business

consequent upon an insured peril covered under the material damage policy.

Employee solutions:

Group Personal Accident Policy

It is a worldwide cover providing protection for the employees against any accidental

injuries sustained by the individuals resulting in death and disablement.

Group Health

Health Premium Platinum is a comprehensive health insurance package, designed for the

employees of company and their family members.

Workmen's Compensation

Workmen's Compensation provides cover to target clients as required by law in support

to project insurances or property insurances.

2.1 NEED OF THE STUDY

This study helps the company to identify its competitive position among its industrial

competitors by which the company can further improve its performance to enjoy high

reputation among clients.

This study also helps in making necessary changes in the attributes of the insurance cover

offered by the company so that the customers can enjoy the benefits of the insurance

cover.

The need for the study also arises to identify and offer additional insurance products

according to the expectations of the customers.

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance of [COMPANY NAME] with other competitors

in the general insurance industry.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To identify the position [COMPANY NAME] holds among other private

players.

To find out the strengths and weaknesses of the company’s insurance schemes

To study consumer’s awareness towards insurance products

To identify the customer’s perception about the company and its products.

2.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study has a wider scope among the insurance sector. The study which focuses on

various aspects such as competitive position of [COMPANY NAME], strengths and

weaknesses of insurance covers, customer’s perception, etc also holds good for other

companies in the life and non-life insurance segment.

The outcome of the study, which are based on the above aspects can be utilized by

the marketing department of both life and non-life insurance companies.

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

There were certain limitations in undertaking this research work. As it is understood that

the limitations are a part of the project, they have been overshadowed by the benefits of

the study.

The survey conducted may not be considered as comprehensive as only limited

respondents could be contacted because of the time constraint.

Objectives and the purposes of the study and the questions had to be explained to

the respondents and their responses may be biased.

Some of the respondents were reluctant to give their responses.

Only limited sample size had been considered for the study and therefore, the

conclusions drawn based on this may not be a reflection of the entire population.

2.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

According to the recent report of Lloyd, the Indian insurance market is likely to change in

the next few years significantly largely due to regulatory changes. In addition, premium

growth is being driven by other factors such as the growing consumer class, increased

foreign direct investment, infrastructure development, and an increased awareness of

catastrophe exposure.

Despite significant positive changes, the insurance market must still face the challenge of

poor customer perceptions and the danger that the pace of reform will slow. Several

significant structural changes are expected in the insurance market that will influence the

country’s development in the medium to long term

So far, the entry of a large number of Indian and foreign private companies has led to

greater choice in terms of products and services for Indian consumers. A growing

realisation of the benefits and importance of sophisticated insurance and reinsurance tools

has broadened the pool of potential buyers of insurance. Given this backdrop, the Indian

insurance market has experienced considerable growth since its liberalisation in 2000.

Over the next three years, the Indian insurance market is likely to see its process of

maturation accelerate. Regulatory changes in the four areas– products, market players,

distribution and reinsurance – will drive change in the Indian insurance market in the

medium term.

• Price competition has already begun to increase and is likely to continue to do so for the

next 18 to 24months.

• The practice of cross-subsidisation is likely to be phased out as risk-based pricing is

used increasingly for all products.

• As Indian insurers build a profitable portfolio, they are likely to have increased access

to the international reinsurance markets.

• Finally, rising demand for insurance is likely to be met by increased capacity as foreign

insurers look to access this growing market.

As per the recent research by Moody’s – ICRA Global Insurance, the following facts

relating to the performance of both private and public sector general insurance companies

were made.

Private Sector’s Growing Influence

The private sector has been steadily growing market share despite the fact that public

sector companies have been around for a lot longer. The private insurers enjoy

considerable operational flexibility, whereas the public sector companies have been

constrained by their traditions and inability to innovate.

Market Share – Redistribution

Due to the effectiveness of private marketing strategies, the market share of public

insurers has consistently declined. Given a faster growth rate, the market share of the

private sector is catching that of the public sector and the two will likely converge over

the medium term.

The private sector share of third party motor business was much lower in the past than

that for public firms as the former did not pursue this market because of its negative

underwriting margins. However, with the formation of the common third party motor

pool, the situation has changed. The losses related to this segment now get shared among

all the players, leaving little incentive to avoid this segment.

Fire and engineering now broadly contribute a similar proportion of overall business for

the private and public sectors. In terms of overall business, the focus has shifted towards

the retail segments of motor and health, where good growth is expected.

Operational Flexibility

The public entities lack the operational flexibility enjoyed by the private players. Their

limited capacity to innovate has impacted their ability to tailor and aggressively price

products for large corporations. The private players by contrast have focused on account-

level profitability for large corporations and have expanded their shares by cross-

subsidizing tariffed products.

Client Servicing

The public insurers have also been hampered in claims servicing by their process oriented

approach and limited operational flexibility. They have been unable to expedite claim

settlements through out-of-court negotiations since a large proportion of their claims

pertain to the third party motor segment, which is subject to adjudication by the Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal. The result is a time-consuming and involved process.

Strong Infrastructure and Systems

Private players are not hindered by their charters or legacy systems and have constructed

technologically advanced infrastructure. They started with large investments in

technology, which helped them to build robust data management systems. This

characteristic enables in turn quick and effective decision-making for pricing and claims

settlements, attributes vital to building franchises.

On the other hand, public entities have only recently upgraded their systems and have to

grapple with transition issues, such as moving from paper to paper-less systems. They are

encumbered by legacy systems and fragmented databases, and have not fully used their

past claim experiences, something which could give them a strong pricing edge in a de-

tariffed environment.

Focused Underwriting Strategy

The private players, especially during their initial years, have selectively targeted the

more profitable lines of the public sector companies for growth. They benefit from the

experiences of the public sector as well as their international joint-venture partners. They

have drawn talent from public sector companies.

Superior Claim Paying/Processing Capability

The combination of superior technology and selective underwriting has allowed the

private sector to set high standards for policyholder services, thereby differentiating

themselves from public sector insurers. The claim settlement performance of the private

sector has also been superior because of the limited amount of third party motor business

that they have underwritten. Such claims normally take a longer time to settle.

Distribution – Rise of Bancassurance

The Indian general insurance industry has historically been dominated by the agency

channel, through which 75% of total premium income is sourced. But in recent periods

other channels – for example, bancassurance, brokers, corporate agents, direct marketing

and direct sales channels -- are gaining importance. Most insurers now have tie-ups with

the banks, which act as corporate agents and are remunerated on a commission basis. For

example, ICICI Lombard sources a major portion of its business from a tie-up with ICICI

Bank. Similarly, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (BAIL, second

largest private player) has tie-ups with large number of banks, which contribute a big

share of its total premium income.

As of December 31 2007, 267 brokers were registered with IRDA, including 228 direct

brokers, 33 composite brokers and 6 reinsurance brokers. In a deregulated environment,

the broking community will have plenty of opportunity to become an integral part of the

insurance and risk financing process. At this time, low cost channels like tele-sales and

the internet are still not developed in India, mainly due to relatively poor knowledge

about insurance products and low internet penetration.

One conclusion is certain– the Indian non-life market is set to grow dramatically over the

next few years. The simplest forecasts suggest that premium income could double in the

next few years to reach USD11.6bn in 2010. When the structural changes above are taken

into consideration, this growth becomes exponential, with relatively slow growth in 2007

rising to rapid growth by 2010.

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN           

Research design is the plan, structure to answer whom, when, where and how the subject

is under investigation.  Here plan is an outline of the research scheme & which the

researcher has to work.  The structure of the research is a more specific outline and the

strategy out, specifying the methods to be used in the connection & analysis of the data.

Descriptive Research Design

The type of research design used in this study is the descriptive research. The main

characteristics of this method is that the researcher has no control over the variables and

he can only report what has happened or what is happening. This study which compares

the performance of [COMPANY NAME] with its industrial competitors has been

undertaken based on the opinions of the consumers. Hence, this research study is

categorized as Descriptive Research Method

DATA COLLECTION

The main source of information for this study is based on the data collection. Data

collected are both primary and secondary in nature.

Primary Data

Primary data have been directly collected from the clients of [COMPANY NAME] as

well from the clients of other insurance companies by survey method through

undisguised structured questionnaire.

Questions like open ended, close ended, multiple choice, dichotomous and ranking type

have been used for the purpose of data collection.

Secondary Data

Secondary data have been collected from official website of [COMPANY NAME] and

also from other official websites related to general insurance industry

TYPES OF QUESTIONS

Open ended question

Open ended question are the type of question used to get suggestion from the respondent

in order to give feed back to the organization.

Close ended question

Close ended question are the type of questions with a clear declined set of alternatives

that confine the respondents to choose one of them.

Multiple choice question

It consists of multiple choices in which the respondents can choose more than one

Likert scale

It uses 5 point or 7 point scale to elicit respondent’s favour or unfavour towards an

object.

Dichotomous question

It consists of two choices of answers in which the respondent has to choose one of them.

Ranking

In ranking, questions will have the ranking skill, which the respondents are free to rank

them according to their preference.

SAMPLING

Convenience sampling is been used in the study. This type of sampling is basically used

when you simply stop anybody in the street who is prepared to stop, or when you wander

round a business, a shop, a restaurant, a theatre or whatever, asking people you meet

whether they will answer your questions. In other words, the sample comprises subjects

who are simply available in a convenient way to the researcher. There is no randomness

and the likelihood of bias is high. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the

results you obtain.

However, this method is often the only feasible one, particularly for students or others

with restricted time and resources, and can legitimately be used provided its limitations

are clearly understood and stated.

SAMPLE SIZE  

Sample size is the total number of samples selected for the study from the sampling

population. Sample size for the study was arrived at 120 by using the formula:

n = z 2 * p * q e2

n = 1.96 2 * 0.9143 * .086

0.052

= 120

METHODS / TOOLS OF ANALYSIS

Tools used for analysis are: 

Chi-square test

Weighted average method

Interval estimation

Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation

H-test

Graph

Percentage

1. CHI-SQUARE TEST

There may be situation in which it is not possible to make any rigid assumption about

distribution of the population from which samples being drawn.  This limitation has led

to the development of a group of alternative techniques known as non-parametric

tests. Chi-square describes the magnitude of the discrepancy between theory and

observation.

n

χ² = ∑ [(Oi – Ei) 2] with n-1 degrees of freedom i =1 Ei

2.  WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD

This method is widely used in finding the weightage given to different attributed by

respondents. The respondents assign different weightage to the different ranking and

weighted average percentage is found and graphs are plotted.

Net score = (weight for column * no. of respondents) Total weight

Net score in %age = net score in row Total net score*100

3. INTERVAL ESTIMATION METHOD

An estimation of a population parameter given by 2 numbers between when the

parameter

may be considered to lie is called interval estimation of the parameter.

( p - z √pq ; p + z √pq ) n n

p = sample proportion of success

q = sample proportion of failure

z = standard variance of the confidence level

n = no. of sample size

3. KARL PEARSON’S COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION

Correlation analysis helps us in determining the degree of relationship between 2 or more

variables. The value of the coefficient of correlation as obtained by the below formula

shall always lie between +1 and -1. When r = +1, it means there is perfect positive

correlation between the variables. When r = -1, there is perfect negative correlation

between the variables and when r = 0, there is no relationship between the two variables.

∑ xy

r = -------------------- _________

√∑x2 - ∑ y2

__ __ x = (X - X) ; y = (Y - Y)4. H-TEST

When more than two random samples are given, H-test is used. It is used to test the null

hypothesis that several independent samples come from the same population.

H = [12 / (N (N+1)) * (R12/ n1 + R2

2 / n2 + R32 / n3 + R4

2 / n4 + R52 / n5)] – 3 (n + 1)

Ri = Sum of ranks of sample i

5. PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

Percentage analysis shows the entire population in terms of percentages.

Percentage = No. of respondents *100

Total respondents

6. GRAPHS

Graphical method was used in order to represent the factor in various graphical methods

like pie-chart, bar diagram and cylinder.

3.2.1 TABLE SHOWING AGE OF RESPONDENTS

S.No Age No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Less than 25 yrs 43 35.83

2 25-35 32 26.67

3 35-45 20 16.67

4 45-55 12 10

5 Above 55 yrs 13 10.83

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 35.83% of the respondents belong to the age group

of less than 25 years, 26.67% fall under the category of 25-35 years, 16.67% belong to

the age group of 35-45 years, 10% belong to the age group of 45-55 years and the rest

10.83% above 55 years

Inference: It is inferred that there is a higher percentage (i.e. 35.83%) of respondents in

the age group of less than 25 years and comparatively very lower percentage (i.e. 10%) of

respondents in the age group of 45-55 years

3.2.1 CHART SHOWING AGE OF RESPONDENTS

Lessthan 25

yrs

25-35 35-45 45-55 Above55 yrs

35.83

26.67

10.8310

16.67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No. of respondents

Age in years

3.2.2 TABLE SHOWING GENDER OF RESPONDENTS

S.No Gender No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Male 81 67.5

2 Female 39 32.5

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 67.5% of respondents are male and 32.5% are

female respondents

Inference: It is inferred that there is a higher percentage (i.e. 67.5%) of male

respondents.

3.2.2 CHART SHOWING GENDER OF RESPONDENTS

67.5

32.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No

.of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Male Female

3.2.3 TABLE SHOWING OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS

S.No Occupation No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Service 25 20.83

2 Govt. employee 16 13.33

3 Business 23 19.17

4 Professional 19 15.83

5 Others 37 30.83

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 20.83% of respondents belong to the category of

services, 13.33% are government employees, 19.17% belong to the category of business,

15.83% are professional and the rest 30.83% belong to other category, which comprises

of private sector employee

Inference: It is inferred that there is a higher percentage (i.e.30.83%) of respondents in

the category comprising private sector employees.

3.2.3 CHART SHOWING OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS

19.17

15.83

30.83

13.33

20.83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Service Govt.employee

Business Professional Others

occupation

No

. o

f re

spo

nd

ents

3.2.4 TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN A FAMILY

S.No No. of family members No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 2-4 91 75.83

2 5-8 29 24.17

3 More than 8 - -

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 75.83% of respondents have 2-4 members in their

family and the rest 24.17% of respondents have 5-8 members in their family.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (75.83%) of respondents have 2-4

members in their family

3.2.4 CHART SHOWING NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN A FAMILY

75.83

24.17

0

0 20 40 60 80

No.of respondents

2 to 4

5 to 8

More than 8

No

. o

f fa

mil

y m

emb

ers

3.2.5 TABLE SHOWING ANNUAL INCOME OF RESPONDENTS

S.No Annual income No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Less than Rs.2 lakhs 31 25.83

2 Rs.2-5 lakhs 51 42.5

3 Rs.5 -10 lakhs 20 16.67

4 Rs.10-20 lakhs 9 7.5

5 Above Rs.20 lakhs 9 7.5

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 25.83% of respondents fall under the income

category of less than 2 lakhs, 42.5% fall under the category of 2-5 lakhs, 16.67% fall

under the income category of 5-10 lakhs, 7.5% in the category of 10-20 lakhs and the rest

7.5% in the income category above 20 lakhs

Inference: It is inferred that there is a higher percentage (42.5%) of respondents in the

income category of 2-5 lakhs and comparatively a very lower percentage (7.5%) of

respondents in the income category of 10-20 lakhs and above 20 lakhs

3.2.5 CHART SHOWING ANNUAL INCOME OF RESPONDENTS

16.67

7.5 7.5

42.5

25.83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Less thanRs.2 lakhs

Rs.2-5 lakhs Rs.5 -10lakhs

Rs.10-20lakhs

Above Rs.20lakhs

Annual Income

No

. o

f re

spo

nd

ents

3.2.6 TABLE SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF HAVING A GENERAL

INSURANCE COVER

S.No Opinion No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other companies RSA Other companies

1 Yes 60 60 100 100

2 No - - - -

Total 60 60 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that 100% of respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME] and 100% who are policy holders with other companies, have

responded that it is necessary to have a general insurance cover.

Inference: It is inferred that all the respondents surveyed have stated that it is necessary

to have a general insurance cover.

3.2.6 CHART SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF HAVING A GENERAL

INSURANCE COVER

60 60

0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No.of respondents

yes no

RSA

Other companies

3.2.7 TABLE SHOWING NO. OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES HELD BY

RESPONDENTS

S.No No. of policies No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 1 62 51.67

2 2-4 41 34.17

3 More than 4 17 14.17

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 51.67% of respondents hold 1 policy, 34.17%

holds 2 to 4 policies and the rest 14.17% holds more than 4 general insurance policies.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (51.67%) of respondents holds 1 general

insurance policy.

3.2.7 CHART SHOWING NO. OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES HELD BY

RESPONDENTS

51.67

34.17

14.17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No

.of

res

po

nd

en

ts

1 2 to 4 More than 4

No.of policies

3.2.8 TABLE SHOWING WHETHER THE GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES

ARE TAKEN FROM THE SAME COMPANY

S.No Opinion No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Yes 66 55

2 No 54 45

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 55% of respondents hold general insurance policy

with the same company and 45% of respondents hold it in various other companies.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (55%) of respondents holds general

insurance policy with the same company.

3.2.8 CHART SHOWING WHETHER THE GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES

ARE TAKEN FROM THE SAME COMPANY

55

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No

.of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Yes No

INTERVAL ESTIMATION: WHETHER THE GENERAL INSURANCE

POLICIES TAKEN FROM THE SAME COMPANY

Formula:

No. of respondents who have taken policies from the same company: 66

No. of respondents who have not taken policies from the same company: 54

n = sample size = 120

p= Number of yes = 66 = .55 Sample size 120

q = 1-p = 1-.55 = .45

Z = 1.96 at 95% confidence level __________

Standard error = = .55 * .45 = 0.0454

120

Interval estimation= p

= (0.55 1.96(0.0454)

= 0.4610>p>0.639

= 46.1%, 63.9%

Conclusion

Hence, we conclude that the percentage of respondents who have taken policies from the

same company lies between 46.1% to 63.9%

3.2.9 TABLE SHOWING NO.OF COMPANIES IN WHICH RESPONDENT IS A

POLICY HOLDER

S.No No. of companies No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 2 companies 43 79.63

2 2-5 10 18.52

3 More than 5 companies 1 1.85

Total 54 100

Findings: The above table shows that 79.63% of respondents are policy holders in 2

companies, 18.52% of respondents are policy holders in 2-5 companies and the rest

1.85% of respondents are policy holders in more than 5 companies.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage of respondents (79.63%) are policy

holders in at least 2 companies.

3.2.10 CHART SHOWING NO.OF COMPANIES IN WHICH RESPONDENT IS A

POLICY HOLDER

79.63

18.51

1.851

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

2 companies 2 to 5 More than 5companies

3.2.10 TABLE SHOWING COMPANIES ENJOYING HIGH REPUTATION

AMIDST CUSTOMERS.

S.No Companies No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 [COMPANY NAME] 47 39.17

2 TATA AIG 13 10.83

3 Bajaj Allianz 15 12.5

4 Iffco tokio 8 6.67

5 ICICI 12 10

6 Reliance 14 11.67

7 Others 11 9.17

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 39.17% of respondents have stated [COMPANY

NAME], 10.83% have stated TATA AIG, 12.5% have stated Bajaj Allianz, 6.67% have

stated Iffco Tokio, 10% of them have stated ICICI, 11.6% of them have stated Reliance

and the rest 9.17% of them have stated other companies like Cholamandalam and Public

sector insurance companies

Inference: It is inferred that higher reputation amidst customers is enjoyed by

[COMPANY NAME] with 39.17% of respondents stating it.

3.2.10 CHART SHOWING COMPANIES ENJOYING HIGH REPUTATION

AMIDST CUSTOMERS

Royal Sundaram

39%

TATA AIG11%

Bajaj Allianz12%

Iffco tokio7%

ICICI10%

Reliance12%

Others9%

3.2.11 TABLE SHOWING AWARENESS AMONGST [COMPANY NAME]

CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE INSURANCE SCHEMES OFFERED BY

[COMPANY NAME]

S.No Awareness No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Yes 45 75

2 No 15 25

Total 60 100

Findings: The above table shows that 75% of respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME], have stated that they are aware of various insurance schemes

offered by [COMPANY NAME] and the rest 25% of respondents who are policy holders

with [COMPANY NAME] have stated that they are not aware of all the insurance

schemes offered by the company

Inference: It is inferred that higher percentage (75%) of respondents, who are policy

holders with [COMPANY NAME] are aware of various insurance schemes offered by

the company.

3.2.11 CHART SHOWING AWARENESS AMONGST [COMPANY NAME]

CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE INSURANCE SCHEMES OFFERED BY

[COMPANY NAME]

75

25

Yes

No

INTERVAL ESTIMATION: AWARENESS AMONGST [COMPANY NAME]

CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE INSURANCE SCHEMES OFFERED BY

[COMPANY NAME]

Formula:

No. of [COMPANY NAME] customers who are aware of various insurance schemes

offered by [COMPANY NAME]: 45

No. of [COMPANY NAME] customers who are aware of various insurance schemes

offered by [COMPANY NAME]: 15

n = sample size = 60

p= Number of yes = 45 = .75 Sample size 60

q = 1-p = 1-.75 = .25

Z = 1.96 at 95% confidence level __________

Standard error = = .75 * .25 = 0.056

60

Interval estimation= p

= (0.75 1.96(0.056)

= 0.64024>p>0.8598

= 64.02%, 85.98%

Conclusion

Hence we conclude that the percentage of respondents aware of various insurance

schemes offered by [COMPANY NAME] lies between 64.02% to 85.98%

3.2.12 TABLE SHOWING RESPONDENT’S OPINION TOWARDS [COMPANY

NAME]’S OFFERING OF CUSTOMER CENTRIC PRODUCTS

S.No Opinion No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Highly agree 5 8.3

2 Agree 48 80

3 Neither agree nor disagree 5 8.3

4 Disagree 2 3.3

5 Highly disagree - -

Total 60 100

Findings: The above table shows that 8.3% of respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME] highly agree, 80% of them just agree, 8.3% of them neither agree

nor disagree and the rest 3.3% of them disagree that [COMPANY NAME] is known for

offering customer-centric products.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (80%) of respondents, who are policy

holders with [COMPANY NAME] have agreed that [COMPANY NAME] is well known

for offering customer centric products.

3.2.12 CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S AGREEMENT TOWARDS

[COMPANY NAME]’S OFFERING OF CUSTOMER CENTRIC PRODUCTS

8.3

0

80

3.3

8.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Highly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Highly disagree

No.of respondents

3.2.13 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE

SERVICE OF [COMPANY NAME]

S.No Comment No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Excellent 23 38.33

2 Very good 30 50

3 Moderate 7 11.67

4 Poor - -

5 Very poor - -

Total 60 100

Findings: The above table shows that 38.33% of respondents have indicated the service

of [COMPANY NAME] as excellent, and 50% of them have stated it as very good and

11.67% of them have indicated it as moderate.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (50%) of respondents have indicated

that the service rendered by [COMPANY NAME] as very good.

3.2.13 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE

SERVICE OF [COMPANY NAME]

38.33

50

11.67

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Excellent Very good Moderate Poor Very poor

No

. o

f re

spo

nd

ents

3.2.14 TABLE SHOWING SOURCES BY WHICH THE RESPONDENTS

BECAME FAMILIAR OF [COMPANY NAME]

S.No Source of information No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Ads (print, radio, TV) 21 35

2 Insurance agents 14 23.33

3 Friends & Relatives 25 41.67

4 Others - -

Total 60 100

Findings: The above table shows that 35% of respondents have indicated advertisement,

23.33% of them have stated insurance agents and 41.67% of them have indicated friends

& relatives as means by which they came to know about [COMPANY NAME].

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (41.67%) of respondents has indicated

friends and relatives as means by which they came to know about [COMPANY NAME].

3.2.14 CHART SHOWING SOURCES BY WHICH THE RESPONDENTS

BECAME FAMILIAR OF [COMPANY NAME]

Others0% Ads (print,

radio, TV)35%

Insurance agents23%

Friends & Relatives

42%

3.2.15 TABLE SHOWING THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE COVER HELD BY

RESPONDENTS.

S.No Period of insurance cover No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Annual policy 61 50.83

2 1-5 year 35 29.17

3 5-10 year 11 9.17

4 10-15 year 13 10.83

5 Greater than 15 years - -

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 50.83% of respondents hold annual policy, 29.17%

of them hold 1-5 year policy cover, 9% of them hold 5-10year policy and 10.83% of them

hold 10-15 year policy.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (50.83%) of respondents holds annual

policy.

3.2.15 CHART SHOWING THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE COVER HELD BY

RESPONDENTS.

50.83

0

9.17

10.83

29.17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Annual policy

1-5 year

5-10 year

10-15 year

greater than 5 years

per

iod

of

insu

ran

ce c

ove

r

No.of respondents

3.2.16 TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF YEARLY INSURANCE

PREMIUM PAID

S.No Yearly premium paid No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Less than Rs.5000 43 35.83

2 Rs.5000-15000 58 48.33

3 Rs.15000-25000 12 10

4 Greater than Rs.25000 7 5.83

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 35.83% of respondents have been paying insurance

premium less than Rs.5000 yearly, 48.330% of them have been paying premium between

Rs.5000-15000 yearly, 10% of them have been paying between Rs.15000-25000 as

yearly premium and 5.83% of them have been paying more than Rs.25000 as yearly

premium.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage of respondents (48.3%) have been

paying yearly insurance premium between Rs.5000-15000

3.2.16 CHART SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF YEARLY INSURANCE

PREMIUM PAID

35.83

48.33

10

5.83

0 10 20 30 40 50

No.of respondents

Less than Rs.5000

Rs.5000-15000

Rs.15000-25000

Greater than Rs.25000

APPLYING KARL PEARSON’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BY

COMPARING ANNUAL INCOME AND THE YEARLY PREMIUM AMOUNT

PAID

Premium amount Less than

Rs.5000

Rs.5000 -

15000

Rs.15000 -

25000

More than

Rs.25000

No. of respondents 43 58 12 7

Annual income Less than

Rs.2 lakhs

Rs.2-5

lakhs

Rs.5-10

lakhs

Rs.10-20

lakhs

Above

Rs.20 lakhs

No. of respondents 31 51 20 9 9

Premium amount

(X)

Annual income

(Y)

43 31

58 51

12 20

7 9

0 9

∑ xy r = --------------------

_________ √∑x2 - ∑ y2

__ __x = (X - X) ; y = (Y - Y)

Premium

(X) x x2

Annual

income (Y) y y2

xy

43 13 169 31 7 49 91

58 28 784 51 27 729 756

12 -18 324 20 -14 16 72

7 -23 529 9 -15 225 345

0 0 0 9 -15 225 0

∑X = 120 ∑ x2=

1806

∑ Y= 120 ∑ y2=

1244

∑ xy = 1264

__X = 120 = 30

4 __

Y = 120 = 245

∑ x2 = 1806 ; ∑ y2 = 1244 ; ∑ xy = 1264

1264 r = -------------------------- = .8433

_____________ √1806 * 1244

Conclusion:

The variables annual income and premium amount paid are positively correlated. Hence,

the annual income has an impact on the premium amount paid.

3.2.17 TABLE SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE YEARLY

PREMIUM PAID

S.No Comment No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other co. RSA Other Co.

1 Very high - - -

2 High 39 12 65 20

3 Reasonable 21 48 35 80

4 Low - - -

5 Very low - - -

Total 60 60 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that 65% of respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME] have stated that the yearly premium paid, is high and the rest 35%

of them have stated it is reasonable. Amongst the respondents, who are policy holders

with other companies 20% of them have stated that the yearly premium being paid is high

and the rest 80% of them have stated that it is reasonable.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (65%) of policy holders of [COMPANY

NAME] feel that the premium paid is high and only 20% of policy holders of other

companies have stated it is high

3.2.17 CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE YEARLY

PREMIUM PAID

65

35

20

80

0102030405060708090

very

hig

h

high

reas

onab

le low

very

low

no. o

f res

pond

ents

RSA

Other Co.

APPLYING CHI-SQAURE TEST BY COMPARING THE PERIOD OF GENERAL INSURANCE COVER AND THE PREMIUM RANGE

Period of

insurance

cover

Premium range

Very high High Reasonable Low Very

low

Total

Annual policy 0 27 34 0 0 61

1-5 yr 0 10 25 0 0 35

5-10 yr 0 7 4 0 0 11

10-15 yr 0 7 6 0 0 13

>15 yr 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 51 69 0 0 120

Ho: There is no significant difference between premium and period of general

insurance policy

H1: There is a significant difference between premium and period of general

insurance policy

Table of expected frequency:

Expected Value = row total * column total Grand total

0 25.925 35.075 0 0

0 14.875 20.125 0 0

0 4.675 6.325 0 0

0 5.525 7.475 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Formulae: χ² = ∑ [(Oi – Ei) 2] with n-1 degrees of freedom

i =1 Ei

Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

0 0 0 0

27 25.925 1.156 0.0446

34 35.075 1.156 .033

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

10 14.875 23.766 1.6

25 20.125 23.766 1.18

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

7 4.675 5.406 1.1564

4 6.325 5.406 .855

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

7 5.525 2.176 .394

6 7.475 2.176 .291

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Total 5.554

χ²cal = 5.554

χ²0.05 with (n-1) (n-1) = (5-1) (5-1) = 16

χ²0.05 with 16 d.f = 26.3

χ²cal < χ²0.05

Hence, we accept ho

Conclusion:

We conclude that there is no significant difference between premium and period of

general insurance policy.

3.2.18 TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS

TOWARDS THE POLICY TAKEN

S.No Satisfactory level No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other cos. RSA Other cos.

1 Highly satisfactory 8 5 13.3 8.3

2 Satisfactory 47 53 78.3 88.3

3 Neither satisfactory nor

dissatisfactory

5 2 8.3 3.3

4 Dissatisfactory - - - -

5 Highly dissatisfactory - - - -

Total 60 60 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that among policy holders of [COMPANY NAME]

13.3% of them are highly satisfied with the policy taken, 78.3% of them are just satisfied

and the rest 8.3% of them are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the policy taken.

Among policy holders of other companies, 8.3% of them are highly satisfied, 88.3% of

them are highly satisfied and the rest 3.35% of them are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

with the policy taken.

Inference: It is inferred that among the policy holders of Royal Sundarm, higher

percentage (78.3%) of them feel that they are satisfied and 13.3% of them are highly

satisfied with the policy taken. Among other policy holders, a higher percentage (88.3%)

of them also feels that they are satisfied and 8.3% of them feel that they are highly

satisfied with the policy taken.

3.2.18 CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS

TOWARDS THE POLICY TAKEN

13.38.3

0 0

88.3

3.3 0 0

78.3

8.3

0102030405060708090

100

high

lysa

tisfa

ctor

y

satis

fact

ory

neith

ersa

tisfa

ctor

yno

rdi

ssat

isfa

ctor

y

diss

atis

fact

ory

high

lydi

ssat

isfa

ctor

y

no

. of

resp

on

den

ts

RSA

Other Co.

APPLYING CHI-SQUARE TEST BY COMPARING SATISFACTORY LEVEL

TOWARDS GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY TAKEN AND THE YEARLY

PREMIUM PAID

Premium

amount

Satisfactory level towards General insurance policy

Highly

satisfactory

Satisfactory Neither

satisfactory

nor

dissatisfactory

Dissatisfactory Highly

dissatisfactory

Total

Less than

Rs.5000

3 38 2 0 0 43

Rs.5000-

15000

0 57 1 0 0 58

Rs.15000-

25000

7 3 2 0 0 12

More than

Rs.25000

3 2 2 0 0 7

Total 13 100 7 0 0 120

Ho: There is no significant difference between yearly premium paid and satisfactory

level towards general insurance policy taken

H1: There is a significant difference between yearly premium paid and satisfactory

level towards general insurance policy taken

Table of expected frequency:

Expected Value = row total * column total Grand total

4.6583 35.83 2.5083 0 0

6.283 48.3 3.383 0 0

1.3 10 .07 0 0

.7583 5.83 .4083 0 0

Formulae:χ² = ∑ [(Oi – Ei) 2] with n-1 degrees of freedom

i =1 Ei

Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

3 4.6583 2.75 0.5903

38 35.83 4.7089 0.1314

2 2.5083 0.2584 0.1030

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 6.283 39.48 6.283

57 48.3 75.69 1.57

1 3.383 5.68 1.68

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

7 1.3 32.49 24.99

3 10 49 4.9

2 .07 3.725 53.214

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

3 .7583 5.025 6.63

2 5.83 14.67 2.5163

2 .4083 2.5335 6.205

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Total 108.813

χ²cal = 108.813

χ²0.05 with (n-1) (n-1) = (5-1) (4-1) = 12

χ²0.05 with 12 d.f = 21.0

χ²cal > χ²0.05

Hence, we reject ho

Conclusion:

We conclude that there is a significant difference between yearly premium paid and

satisfactory level towards general insurance policy taken.

3.2.19 TABLE SHOWING NO.OF RESPONDENTS HAVING INSURANCE

AGENTS

S.No Opinion No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other co. RSA Other co.

1 Yes 31 31 51.67 51.67

2 No 29 29 48.33 48.33

Total 60 60 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that 51.67% of respondents among both [COMPANY

NAME] and other companies have insurance agents and the rest 48.33% of respondents

among both [COMPANY NAME] and other companies do not have an insurance agent.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage (51.67%) of respondents among both

[COMPANY NAME] and other companies has insurance agents.

3.2.19 CHART SHOWING NO.OF RESPONDENTS HAVING INSURANCE

AGENTS

51.6751.67

48.33 48.33

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

yes no

RSA

Other companies

INTERVAL ESTIMATION: RESPONDENTS HAVING INSURANCE AGENTS

Formula:

No. of respondents having insurance agents: 62

No. of respondents not having insurance agents: 58

n = sample size = 120

p= Number of yes = 62 = .5166 Sample size 120

q = 1-p = 1-.5166 = .4834

Z = 1.96 at 95% confidence level ______________

Standard error = = .5166 * .4834 = 0.0456

120

Interval estimation= p

= (0.5166 1.96(0.0456)

= 0.4272>p>0.606

= 42.72%, 60.6%

Conclusion

Hence we conclude that the percentage of respondents having insurance agents lies

between 42.72% to 60.6%

3.2.20 TABLE SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE GUIDANCE

RENDERED BY INSURANCE AGENTS

S.No Comment No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other cos. RSA Other cos.

1 Excellent 8 2 25.8 6.5

2 Very good 20 16 64.5 51.6

3 Moderate 3 13 9.7 41.9

4 Poor - - - -

5 Very poor - - - -

Total 31 31 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that 25.8% of respondents among [COMPANY

NAME] and 6.5% of respondents among other companies have indicated that the

guidance rendered by their insurance agent is excellent, 64.5% of respondents among

[COMPANY NAME] and 51.6% of respondents of other companies have indicated that

it is very good and the rest 9.7% of respondents from [COMPANY NAME] and 41.9% of

respondents from other companies have indicated that it is moderate.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage of respondents from both [COMPANY

NAME] (64.5%) and from other companies (51.6%) have indicated that the guidance

rendered by their insurance agent is very good.

3.2.20 CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE GUIDANCE

RENDERED BY INSURANCE AGENTS

25.8

64.5

9.7

0 0

6.5

51.6

41.9

0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70N

o.o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

RSA OTHER CO.

Excellent

Very good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor

3.2.21 TABLE SHOWING THE CLAIMS REJECTED BY THE INSURANCE

COMPANIES

S.No Claims rejected by insurance

companies

No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

RSA Other cos. RSA Other cos.

1 Yes 60 60 100 100

2 No - - -

Total 60 60 100 100

Findings: The above table shows that 100% of respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME] and 100% respondents, who are policy holders with other

companies have stated that their claims were not rejected by the insurance companies.

Inference: It is inferred that all the respondents, who are policy holders with

[COMPANY NAME] as well with other companies have indicated that their claims were

not rejected by the insurance companies.

3.2.21 CHART SHOWING THE CLAIMS REJECTED BY THE INSURANCE

COMPANIES

100 100

0 0

010

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90100

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

yes no

RSA

Other companies

3.2.22 TABLE SHOWING FACTORS THAT INFLUENCES CUSTOMERS TO

CHOOSE A PARTICULAR COMPANY IN BUYING AN INSURANCE POLICY

Influencing factors Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8

Reputation 85 17 9 5 - 1 2 1

Excellent

service/Responsiveness

16 68 12 14 5 4 1 -

Easy accessibility - 3 2 8 17 44 46 -

Good schemes 3 7 19 30 41 17 3 -

Low premium rates 6 7 14 24 48 16 5 -

Heard of good experience

of others

11 3 17 6 4 23 56 -

Proper claim settlement 12 14 50 23 13 5 3 -

Others - - - - - - 7 113

APPLYING WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Influencing factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 W.A RANK

Reputation 85 17 9 5 - 1 2 1 24.61 1

Excellent

service/Responsiveness

16 68 12 14 5 4 1 - 21.7 2

Easy accessibility - 3 2 8 17 44 46 - 10.14 7

Good schemes 3 7 19 30 41 17 3 - 15.5 4

Low premium rates 6 7 14 24 48 16 5 - 15.306 5

Heard of good

experience of others

11 3 17 6 4 23 56 - 12.17 6

Proper claim

settlement

12 14 50 23 13 5 3 - 18.94 3

Others - - - - - - 7 113 3.53 8

Formulae:

Average score = [(R1*8 + R2*7 + R3*6 + R4*5 + R5*4 + R6*3 +R7*2 + R8*1)] Total weights

Sample calculation:

Average score = [(85*8 + 17*7 + 9*6 +5*5 + 0*4 + 1*3 + 2*2 + 1*1)] 36

= 24.61

Findings: The above table clearly shows that while selecting a particular insurance

company to take a policy, majority of the respondents look out for reputation of the

company first, secondly they look out for excellent service/responsiveness of the

company, thirdly proper claim settlement of the company followed by good schemes, low

premium rates, others good experience, and easy accessibility.

Inference: It is inferred that majority of respondents would first look out for the

reputation of the company. Hence it is ranked first.

3.2.22 CHART SHOWING FACTORS THAT INFLUENCES CUSTOMERS TO

CHOOSE A PARTICULAR COMPANY IN BUYING AN INSURANCE POLICY

24.6121.7

10.14

15.5 15.30612.17

18.94

3.53

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Rep

utat

ion

Exc

elle

ntse

rvic

e/R

espo

nsiv

enes

s

Eas

y ac

cess

ibili

ty

Goo

d sc

hem

es

Low

pre

miu

m r

ates

Hea

rd o

f go

odex

perie

nce

of o

ther

s

Pro

per

clai

m s

ettle

men

t

Oth

ers

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

3.2.23 TABLE SHOWING RESPONDENT’S SATISFACTORY LEVEL

TOWARDS VARIOUS FEATURES OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY

TAKEN

S.No Attributes of

general

insurance cover

Highly

satisfied

Satisfied Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

dissatisfied

Total

1 Low premium 9 92 9 10 - 120

2 Claim settlement 26 86 7 1 - 120

3 Larger risk

coverage

21 83 13 3 - 120

4 Money back

guarantee

7 41 62 10 120

5 Easy access to

agents

21 39 58 2 - 120

Total 84 341 149 26 0 600

3.2.23 CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S SATISFACTORY LEVEL

TOWARDS VARIOUS FEATURES OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY

TAKEN

9

21

7

21

8683

41 39

9 713

6258

10

1 3

10

20 0 0 0 0

26

92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low

pre

miu

m

Cla

im s

ettle

men

t

Larg

er r

isk

cove

rage

Mon

ey b

ack

guar

ante

e

Eas

y ac

cess

toag

ents

no

. of

resp

on

den

ts

Highly satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nordissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Highly dissatisfied

APPLYING KRUSKAL – WALLIS OR H – TEST TO THE TABLE 3.2.23

Ho: Respondent’s satisfaction level towards all the attributes of general insurance cover

taken is the same

H1: Respondent’s satisfaction level towards all the attributes of general insurance cover

taken is not the same.

Values Ranks Ranks of low

premium (R1)

Ranks of claim

settlement (R2)

Ranks of larger risk coverage

(R3)

Ranks of money back guarantee

(R4)

Ranks of easy access to agents

(R5)1 1 6.5 13 11.5 5.5 11.5

2 2 20 19 18 15 14

3 3 6.5 4.5 10 17 16

7 4.5 8.5 1 3 8.5 2

7 4.5

9 6.5

9 6.5

10 8.5

10 8.5

13 10

21 11.5

21 11.5

26 13

39 14

41 15

58 16

62 17

83 18

86 19

92 20

Total 41.5 37.5 42.5 46 43.5

R1 = 41.5 ; R2 = 37.5 ; R3 = 42.5 ; R4 = 46 ; R5 = 43.5

Applying the formula for H:

H = [12 / (N (N+1)) * (R12/ n1 + R2

2 / n2 + R32 / n3 + R4

2 / n4 + R52 / n5)] – 3 (n + 1)

H = [12 / (20 (20+1)) * (41.52/4 + 37.52/4 + 42.52/4 + 462/4 + 43.52/4)] – 3 (20+1)

= [(12/420) * (2235.75) – 63

H = .8786

At 5% level of significance with (5-1) d.f = 9.49

χ²0.05 = 9.49

Since, 0.8786 < 9.49

We accept Ho.

Conclusion

Hence, we conclude that the respondent’s satisfaction level towards all the attributes of

general insurance cover taken is the same.

3.2.24 TABLE SHOWING THE SOURCES MOST PREFERRED BY

RESPONDENTS TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS

PRODUCTS

S.No Preferred source of information No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

1 Ads (print, radio & TV) 31 25.83

2 Insurance agents 44 36.67

3 Friends & Relatives 42 35

4 Others 3 2.5

Total 120 100

Findings: The above table shows that 25.83% of respondents would prefer Ads, 36.67%

of them prefer insurance agents, 35% of them prefer Friends & relatives, and the rest

2.5% of them would prefer other sources like company websites, SMS, etc, in order to

know about an insurance company and its products.

Inference: It is inferred that a higher percentage of respondents (36.67%) have stated

insurance agents as the most preferred source.

3.2.24 CHART SHOWING THE SOURCES MOST PREFERRED BY

RESPONDENTS TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS

PRODUCTS

25.83

35

2.5

36.67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ads (print, radio &TV)

Insurance agents Friends & Relatives Others

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

3.2.25 TABLE SHOWING GENERAL INSURANCE COVER THAT IS MOST

FAVORED BY RESPONDENTS

Most favored

insurance cover

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8

Auto/car insurance 85 15 4 16 - - - -

Health insurance 34 64 9 13 - - - -

Hospital cash

insurance

2 29 65 17 4 2 1 -

Personal accident

insurance

- 7 38 65 4 6 - -

Travel insurance 1 - - 5 22 53 37 2

Householder’s

insurance

- 4 - 3 77 35 1 -

Shopkeeper’s

insurance

- - 5 - 11 24 72 8

Others - - - - 16 - 7 97

APPLYING WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD TO THE TABLE 3.2.25

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Most favored

insurance cover

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 W.A RANK

Auto/car insurance 85 15 4 16 - - - - 24.7 1

Health insurance 34 64 9 13 - - - - 23.306 2

Hospital cash

insurance

2 29 65 17 4 2 1 - 19.94 3

Personal accident

insurance

- 7 38 65 4 6 - - 17.67 4

Travel insurance 1 - - 5 22 53 37 2 9.9 6

Householder’s

insurance

- 4 - 3 77 35 1 - 12.72 5

Shopkeeper’s

insurance

- - 5 - 11 24 72 7 8.25 7

Others - - - - 16 - 7 92 4.72 8

Formulae:

Average score = [(R1*8 + R2*7 + R3*6 + R4*5 + R5*4 + R6*3 +R7*2 + R8*1)] Total weights

Sample calculation:

Average score = [(85*8 + 15*7 + 4*6 + 16*5 + 0*4 + 0*3 + 0*2 + 0*1)] 36

= 24.7

Findings: The above table clearly shows that auto/car insurance is been ranked I by

majority of respondents, health insurance ranked II, hospital cash insurance ranked III

followed by personal accident insurance, householder’s insurance, travel insurance,

shopkeeper’s insurance and other insurance (fire insurance, marine, rural insurance, etc)

which are ranked as IV, V, VI, VII and VIII respectively.

Inference: It is inferred that auto/car insurance is the most favored insurance cover

among majority of respondents.

3.2.25 CHART SHOWING GENERAL INSURANCE COVER THAT IS MOST

FAVORED BY RESPONDENTS

24.7

19.9417.67

9.9

12.72

8.25

4.72

23.306

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aut

o/ca

rin

sura

nce

Hea

lthin

sura

nce

Hos

pita

l cas

hin

sura

nce

Per

sona

lac

cide

ntin

sura

nce

Tra

vel

insu

ranc

e

Hou

seho

lder

’sin

sura

nce

Sho

pkee

per’s

insu

ranc

e

Oth

ers

No

.of

resp

on

den

ts

3.3 FINDINGS

It is found that there is a higher percentage (i.e. 35.83%) of respondents in the age

group of less than 25 years and comparatively very lower percentage (i.e. 10%) of

respondent belongs to the age group of 45-55 years.

There is a higher percentage (i.e. 67.5%) of male respondents among the

respondents who has taken general insurance cover.

Majority of the respondents (i.e.30.83%), who has taken general insurance cover

are private sector employees.

It is found that a higher percentage (75.83%) of respondents have 2-4 members in

their family.

It is inferred that there is a higher percentage (42.5%) of respondents in the income

category of 2-5 lakhs and comparatively a very lower percentage (7.5%) of

respondents in the income category of 10-20 lakhs and above 20 lakhs

It is implied that all the respondents surveyed have stated that it is necessary to

have a general insurance cover.

It is evident from the study conducted that majority (51.67%) of the respondents

holds at least 1 general insurance policy.

The study discloses that 55% of respondents hold general insurance policy with

the same company and the rest 45% of respondents hold it in various other

companies.

From the analysis made it is inferred that the percentage of respondents who have

taken policies from the same company lies between 46.1% and 63.9%.

It is inferred that a higher percentage of respondents (79.63%) are policy holders

in at least 2 companies, while18.52% of respondents are policy holders in 2-5

companies and the rest 1.85% of respondents are policy holders in more than 5

companies.

It is inferred that higher reputation amidst customers is enjoyed by [COMPANY

NAME] with 39.17% of respondents stating it.

Majority of respondents (i.e., 75%), who are policy holders with [COMPANY

NAME] have stated that they are aware of various insurance schemes offered by

the company.

It is found that the percentage of respondents aware of various insurance schemes

offered by [COMPANY NAME] lies between 64.02% and 85.98%

Majority of respondents (i.e., 80%), who are policy holders with [COMPANY

NAME] have agreed that [COMPANY NAME] is well known for offering

customer centric products.

It is inferred that a higher percentage (50%) of respondents have indicated that the

service rendered by [COMPANY NAME] as very good, while 38.33% of

respondents have indicated the service of [COMPANY NAME] as excellent, and

the rest 11.67% of them have indicated it as moderate.

The study implies that a higher percentage (41.67%) of respondents has indicated

friends and relatives, while 35% of respondents have indicated advertisement and

the rest 23.33% of them have stated insurance agents as means by which they

came to know about [COMPANY NAME]

Among the respondents, who has taken general insurance cover it is inferred that a

higher percentage (50.83%) of respondents holds annual policy.

Among the respondents, who are holding general insurance cover it is found that a

higher percentage of respondents (48.3%) have been paying yearly insurance

premium between Rs.5000-15000

With the application of Karl Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient it is found that the

variables annual income and premium amount paid are positively correlated.

Among the policy holders of [COMPANY NAME], 65% of them feel that the

premium being paid is high and among the policy holders of other companies only

20% have stated it as high.

According to the chi – square test conducted, it is found that there is no significant

difference between premium and period of general insurance policy.

It is inferred from the study that among the policy holders of Royal Sundarm,

higher percentage (78.3%) of them feel that they are satisfied and 13.3% of them

are highly satisfied with the policy taken. Among other policy holders, a higher

percentage (88.3%) of them also feels that they are satisfied and 8.3% of them feel

that they are highly satisfied with the policy taken.

It is found that there is a significant difference between yearly premium paid and

satisfactory level towards general insurance policy taken, as per the chi-square test

conducted.

The study conducted reveals that a higher percentage (51.67%) of policy holders

among both [COMPANY NAME] and other companies has insurance agents.

It is found that the percentage of respondents having insurance agents lies between

42.72% and 60.6%, according to the analysis conducted

It is found that a higher percentage of respondents from both [COMPANY

NAME] (64.5%) and from other companies (51.6%) have indicated that the

guidance rendered by their insurance agent is very good.

It is inferred that all the respondents, who are policy holders with [COMPANY

NAME] as well with other companies have indicated that their claims were not

rejected by the insurance companies.

It is found that while selecting a particular insurance company to take a policy,

majority of the respondents look out for reputation of the company first, secondly

they look out for excellent service/responsiveness of the company, thirdly proper

claim settlement of the company followed by good schemes, low premium rates,

others good experience, and easy accessibility.

According to the result of the H-test, it is found that the respondent’s satisfaction

level towards all the attributes of general insurance cover taken is the same.

Majority of respondents (36.67%) have stated insurance agents as the most

preferred source to know about an insurance company and its products.

It is found that auto/car insurance is been ranked I by majority of respondents,

health insurance ranked II, hospital cash insurance ranked III followed by personal

accident insurance, householder’s insurance, travel insurance, shopkeeper’s

insurance and other insurance covers (fire insurance, marine, rural insurance, etc)

which are ranked as IV, V, VI, VII and VIII respectively.

3.4 SUGGESTIONS

The present scenario demands almost all the customers to have a general insurance

cover in order to protect from future uncertainty. The company always has an

opportunity to grow and expand its operations in the non-life insurance segment.

Hence, the company can seize this opportunity and pay attention to introduce more

insurance covers to cater to the needs of various classes of people.

Majority of the respondents, who are policy holders with [COMPANY NAME] have

felt that the premium being paid is comparatively higher with the premium rates of

other insurance companies. Hence, amendments can be made in this regard by

offering insurance cover at reasonable premium rates to the customers.

The promptness of claim settlement procedure can be maintained as it is one of the

important aspects which would enhance the reputation of the company, as well as

build trust in the minds of the customers. Also, it helps to retain existing customers

and attract new customers.

The company has to focus more on the auto/car insurance segment and health

insurance segment. Majority of the respondents have preference towards auto/car

insurance as it is a must to have insurance for their vehicles by law. Therefore, the

company has got enough opportunities to earn huge profits from both these

segments.

The company can create more awareness about its products among potential

customers by means of advertisements and efficient insurance agents, which in turn

will help in increasing its customer base.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS

The study was conducted to compare the performance of [COMPANY NAME] with its

industrial competitors. The study has been able to accomplish its objectives, by

thoroughly analyzing and identifying the competitive position of [COMPANY NAME],

strengths and weaknesses of various insurance covers among the clients of various

insurance companies, customer’s awareness and perception about the company and its

products. The company may highly be benefited by the outcome of this study.

The outcome of the study has proved that the performance of the company is outstanding

in comparison with other competitors in the non-life insurance segment and that the

company has a higher reputation among customers.

It is concluded that the company could initiate various steps based on the

recommendations given in this report. The company by adopting some of the

recommendations, if not all, can further improve its performance and occupy a leading

position among other competitors in the non-life insurance market in future years to

come.