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 = z2 * p * q
e2
n = 1.962 * 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.

5 )] –
H = [12 / (N (N+1)) * (R12/ n 1+ R 22 / n +2 R 2 3/ n +3 R 2 /4n + 4R 2 / n 5 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

CHART SHOWING AGE OF RESPONDENTS

40 35.83
35
30 26.67
25 16.67
No. of
20
respondents 10.83
15 10
10
5
0
Less 25-35 35-45 45-55 Above
than 25 55 yrs
yrs
Age in years

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.

CHART SHOWING GENDER OF RESPONDENTS

67.5

70
60
No.of respondents

50 32.5
40
30
20
10
0
Male Female

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.

CHART SHOWING OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS

35 30.83

30
No. of respondents

25 20.83 19.17
15.83
20
13.33
15
10
5
0
Service Govt. Business Professional Others
employee
occupation

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

CHART SHOWING NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN A FAMILY

No. of family members

More than 8 0

24.17
5 to 8

2 to 4 75.83

0 20 40 60 80

No.of respondents

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

CHART SHOWING ANNUAL INCOME OF RESPONDENTS

42.5
45
40
35
No. of respondents

30 25.83
25 16.67
20
15 7.5 7.5
10
5
0
Less than Rs.2-5 lakhs Rs.5 -10 Rs.10-20 Above Rs.20
Rs.2 lakhs lakhs lakhs lakhs
Annual Income

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.

CHART SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF HAVING A GENERAL INSURANCE

COVER

60
60
60
50

40
No.of RSA
30
respondents
Other companies
20

10 0 0

0
yes no

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.

CHART SHOWING NO. OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES HELD BY

RESPONDENTS

51.67
60
No.of respondents

50
34.17
40
30 14.17
20
10
0
1 2 to 4 More than 4
No.of policies

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.

CHART SHOWING WHETHER THE GENERAL INSURANCE POLICIES ARE TAKEN

FROM THE SAME COMPANY

55
60
45
No.of respondents

50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No

INTERVAL ESTIMATION: WHETHER THE GENERAL INSURANCE

POLICIES TAKEN FROM THE SAME COMPANY

Formula:

pq
p Z/2
n

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 / 2 = 1.96 at 95% confidence level

pq
Standard error = = .55 * .45 = 0.0454
n
120

pq
Interval estimation= p  Z / 2
n
= (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%

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.

CHART SHOWING NO.OF COMPANIES IN WHICH RESPONDENT IS A

POLICY HOLDER

79.63
80
70
No.of respondents

60
50 18.51
40
30 1.851
20
10
0
2 companies 2 to 5 More than 5
companies

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.

CHART SHOWING COMPANIES ENJOYING HIGH REPUTATION AMIDST

CUSTOMERS
 Shrira
m 9%
9%
Reliance Royal
12% Sundaram
39%
ICICI
10%
Iffco tokio
7%
Bajaj Allianz TATA AIG
12% 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.

CHART SHOWING AWARENESS AMONGST [COMPANY NAME]

CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE INSURANCE SCHEMES OFFERED BY
[COMPANY NAME]

25

Yes
No

75

INTERVAL ESTIMATION: AWARENESS AMONGST [COMPANY NAME]

CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE INSURANCE SCHEMES OFFERED BY
[COMPANY NAME]
Formula:

pq
p Z/2
n

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 / 2 = 1.96 at 95% confidence level

pq
Standard error = = .75 * .25 = 0.056
n
60

pq
Interval estimation= p  Z / 2
n
= (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%
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.

CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S AGREEMENT TOWARDS

[COMPANY NAME]’S OFFERING OF CUSTOMER CENTRIC PRODUCTS

Highly disagree 0

Disagree 3.3

Neither agree nor disagree 8.3

Agree 80

Highly agree 8.3

0 20 40 60 80 100
No.of respondents

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.

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE SERVICE OF

[COMPANY NAME]

60
50
50
No. of respondents

38.33
40

30

20
11.67
10
0 0
0
Excellent Very good Moderate Poor Very poor

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].

CHART SHOWING SOURCES BY WHICH THE RESPONDENTS BECAME

FAMILIAR OF [COMPANY NAME]

Others
0% Ads (print,
radio, TV)
Friends & 35%
Relatives
42%

Insurance
agents
23%

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.

CHART SHOWING THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE COVER HELD BY

RESPONDENTS.

greater than 5 years 0

period of insurance cover

10-15 year 10.83

5-10 year 9.17

1-5 year 29.17

Annual policy 50.83

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No.of respondents

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

CHART SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF YEARLY INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID

Greater than Rs.25000 5.83

Rs.15000-25000 10
48.33
Rs.5000-15000

Less than Rs.5000 35.83

0 10 20 30 40 50

No.of respondents
 APPLYING KARL PEARSON’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BY
COMPARING ANNUAL INCOME AND THE YEARLY PREMIUM AMOUNT
PAID

Premium amount Less than Rs.5000 - Rs.15000 - More than

Rs.5000 15000 25000 Rs.25000
No. of respondents 43 58 12 7

Annual income Less than Rs.2-5 Rs.5-10 Rs.10-20 Above

Rs.2 lakhs lakhs lakhs lakhs Rs.20 lakhs
No. of respondents 31 51 20 9 9

Premium amount Annual income

(X) (Y)
43 31
58 51
12 20
7 9
0 9

∑ xy
r = --------------------

√∑x2 - ∑ y2

x = (X - X) ; y = (Y - Y)

Premium Annual
 (X) x x2 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= ∑ Y= 120 ∑ y2= ∑ xy = 1264
1806 1244

X = 120 = 30
4

Y = 120 = 24
5

∑ 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.
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

CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE YEARLY

PREMIUM PAID
 90 80
80
70 65

no. of respondents
60
50 RSA
40 35
Other Co.
30 20
20
10
0

low
high

very low
very high

reasonable

APPLYING CHI-SQAURE TEST BY COMPARING THE PERIOD OF

GENERAL INSURANCE COVER AND THE PREMIUM RANGE
 Period of Premium range
Very high High Reasonable Low Very Total
insurance
low
cover
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.
 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 5 2 8.3 3.3
dissatisfactory
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.

CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS TOWARDS

THE POLICY TAKEN

100
88.3
90 78.3
80
no. of respondents

70
60
RSA
50
Other Co.
40
30
20 13.3
8.3 8.3
10 3.3 0 0 0 0
0
dissatisfactory
satisfactory

satisfactory

dissatisfactory

dissatisfactory
satisfactory
highly

neither

highly
nor
 APPLYING CHI-SQUARE TEST BY COMPARING SATISFACTORY LEVEL
TOWARDS GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY TAKEN AND THE YEARLY
PREMIUM PAID

Satisfactory level towards General insurance policy

Highly Satisfactory Neither Dissatisfactory Highly Total
Premium
satisfactory satisfactory dissatisfactory
amount
nor
dissatisfactory
Less than 3 38 2 0 0 43
Rs.5000
Rs.5000- 0 57 1 0 0 58
15000
Rs.15000- 7 3 2 0 0 12
25000
More than 3 2 2 0 0 7
Rs.25000
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.
 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.

CHART SHOWING NO.OF RESPONDENTS HAVING INSURANCE AGENTS

51.67
51.67
52

51
No.of respondents

50
48.33 48.33 RSA
49
Other companies
48

47

46
yes no
 INTERVAL ESTIMATION: RESPONDENTS HAVING INSURANCE AGENTS

Formula:

pq
p Z/2
n

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 / 2 = 1.96 at 95% confidence level

pq
Standard error = = .5166 * .4834 = 0.0456
n
120

pq
Interval estimation= p  Z / 2
n
= (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%

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.

CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S COMMENT ON THE GUIDANCE RENDERED

BY INSURANCE AGENTS
 70 64.5

60 51.6

No.of respondents 50 41.9 Excellent

40 Very good
25.8 Moderate
30
Poor
20
9.7 Very poor
6.5
10 00 0 0
0
RSA OTHER CO.

TABLE SHOWING THE CLAIMS REJECTED BY THE INSURANCE

COMPANIES
 S.No Claims rejected by insurance No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)
companies 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.

CHART SHOWING THE CLAIMS REJECTED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES

100 100
100
90
80
No.of respondents

70
60
RSA
50
40 Other companies
30
20 0
0
10
0
yes no

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 16 68 12 14 5 4 1 -
service/Responsiveness
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 11 3 17 6 4 23 56 -
of others
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 16 68 12 14 5 4 1 - 21.7 2
service/Responsiveness
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 11 3 17 6 4 23 56 - 12.17 6
experience of others
Proper claim 12 14 50 23 13 5 3 - 18.94 3
settlement
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.

CHART SHOWING FACTORS THAT INFLUENCES CUSTOMERS TO

CHOOSE A PARTICULAR COMPANY IN BUYING AN INSURANCE POLICY

30
24.61
25
No.of respondents

21.7
18.94
20
15.5 15.306
15 12.17
10.14
10
3.53
5
0
Good schemes

experience of others

Proper claim settlement

Low premium rates
Reputation

Others
service/Responsiveness

Easy accessibility

Heard of good
Excellent

TABLE SHOWING RESPONDENT’S SATISFACTORY LEVEL

TOWARDS VARIOUS FEATURES OF GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY
TAKEN

S.No Attributes of Highly Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Highly Total

general satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied
insurance cover dissatisfied
1 Low premium 9 92 9 10 - 120
2 Claim settlement 26 86 7 1 - 120
3 Larger risk 21 83 13 3 - 120
coverage
4 Money back 7 41 62 10 120
guarantee
5 Easy access to 21 39 58 2 - 120
agents
Total 84 341 149 26 0 600

CHART SHOWING RESPONDENT’S SATISFACTORY LEVEL

TOWARDS VARIOUS FEATURES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
POLICY
TAKEN
 100
92
90 86
83
80 Highly satisfied

70
no. of respondents

62 Satisfied
58
60
Neither satisfied nor
50
41 dissatisfied
39
40 Dissatisfied
30 26
21 21 Highly dissatisfied
20 13
9 910 10
10 7 7
3 20
0 10 0 0
0
Claim settlement

Money back
Larger risk
Low premium

Easy access to
coverage

guarantee

agents

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 Ranks of Ranks of Ranks of Ranks of

low claim larger risk money back easy access
premium settlement coverage guarantee to agents
(R1) (R2) (R3) (R4) (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/ n 1 + R22 / n2 + R32 / n3 + R42 / n4 + R5 2 / 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.

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.

CHART SHOWING THE SOURCES MOST PREFERRED BY

RESPONDENTS TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS
PRODUCTS

40
36.67
35
35

30
No.of responden

25.83
25

20

15

10

5 2.5

0
Ads (print, radio & Insurance agents Friends & Relatives Others
TV)

TABLE SHOWING GENERAL INSURANCE COVER THAT IS MOST

FAVORED BY RESPONDENTS
 Most favored Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8
insurance cover
Auto/car insurance 85 15 4 16 - - - -
Health insurance 34 64 9 13 - - - -
Hospital cash 2 29 65 17 4 2 1 -
insurance
Personal accident - 7 38 65 4 6 - -
insurance
Travel insurance 1 - - 5 22 53 37 2
Householder’s - 4 - 3 77 35 1 -
insurance
Shopkeeper’s - - 5 - 11 24 72 8
insurance
Others - - - - 16 - 7 97

APPLYING WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD TO THE TABLE 3.2.25

 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Most favored 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 W.A RANK
insurance cover
Auto/car insurance 85 15 4 16 - - - - 24.7 1
Health insurance 34 64 9 13 - - - - 23.306 2
Hospital cash 2 29 65 17 4 2 1 - 19.94 3
insurance
Personal accident - 7 38 65 4 6 - - 17.67 4
insurance
Travel insurance 1 - - 5 22 53 37 2 9.9 6
Householder’s - 4 - 3 77 35 1 - 12.72 5
insurance
Shopkeeper’s - - 5 - 11 24 72 7 8.25 7
insurance
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

30
24.7
25 23.306
No.of respondents

19.94
20 17.67

15 12.72
9.9
10 8.25
4.72
5

0
Householder’s
insurance

insurance

insurance

insurance

Others
Shopkeeper’s
Hospital cash

Personal
Auto/car

accident

Travel
Health

insurance

insurance
insurance

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.

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.

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.