Chapter 5 Data Analysis

Chapter 5
Data Analysis and Results

5.1
Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis presents profile of the respondents and reveals the mean scores
and standard deviation of the variables measured for LIC (Public sector Insurer) and
HDFC Life (Private sector Insurer).
5.1.1 Customer Profile of LIC Customers
The success of any organisation in formulating effective marketing strategies largely
depends on maintaining up-to-date information about profile of the customers. Table
5.1.1 to 5.1.6 presents a comprehensive profile of the LIC customers who had
participated in the research study.
Table 5.1.1-Gender profile- LIC Customers
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
227
67.4
Female
110
32.6
Total
337
100.0
Results of description showed (Table 5.1.1) that the LIC sample consists of greater
percentage of male customers (67.4%) than female customers.
Table 5.1.2- Age profile- LIC Customers
Age
Frequency
Percent
35 yrs
> 35 yrs
140
197
41.5
58.5
Total
337
100.0
Table 5.1.2 showed that the majority of the respondents (58.5%) were in the age group
of more than 35 years.
Table 5.1.3 Annual household income profile- LIC Customers
Income
5 Lacs
> 5 Lacs
Total
Frequency
144
193
337
Percent
42.7
57.3
100
Table 5.1.3 showed that the majority of the respondents (57.3%) belonged to the
income group of more than 5 Lacs
Table 5.1.4 Education Profile- LIC Customers
Education
Frequency
Percent
Graduate and below
177
52.5
Post Graduate and Higher
160
47.5
Total
337
100
Table 5.1.4 showed that most of the customers were graduates and below (52.5%).
Table 5.1.5 Profession Profile- LIC Customers

Profession
Govt. Employee
Private Employee
Frequency
162
57
Percent
48.1
16.9
Own Business
71
21.1
Others
47
13.9
Total
337
100
Table 5.1.5 showed that majority of the respondents were Govt. Employees (48.1%)
Table 5.1.6 Marital Status-LIC respondents
Marital
Frequency
Percent
Married
219
65.0
Unmarried
118
35.0
Total
337
100
Table 5.1.6 showed that the respondents of the LIC had a greater percentage of married
customers (65%)
5.1.7 Customer Profile of HDFC Life Customers
Table 5.1.7-Gender profile- HDFC Life Customers

Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
263
65.8
Female
137
34.3
Total
400
100.0
Results of description showed (Table 5.1.7) that the HDFC Life sample consists of
greater percentage of male customers (65.8%) than female customers.
Table 5.1.8- Age profile- HDFC Life Customers
Age
Frequency
Percent
35 yrs
> 35 yrs
191
209
47.8
52.3
Total
400
100.0
Table 5.1.8 showed that the majority of the respondents (52.3%) were in the age group
of more than 35 years.
Table 5.1.9 Annual household income profile- HDFC Life Customers
Income
5 Lacs
Frequency
193
Percent
48.3
3
> 5 Lacs
Total
207
400
51.8
100.0
Table 5.1.9 showed that the majority of the respondents (51.8%) belonged to the
income group of more than 5 Lacs
Table 5.1.10 Education Profile- HDFC Life Customers
Education
Frequency
Percent
Graduate and below
166
41.5
Post Graduate
234
58.5
400
100.0
Total
and Higher
Table 5.1.10 showed that most of the respondents were post graduates and higher
(58.5%).
Table 5.1.11 Profession Profile- HDFC Life Customers
Profession
Govt. Employee
Private Employee
Frequency
250
96
Percent
62.5
24.0
Own Business
28
7.0
Others
26
6.5
Total
400
100.0
Table 5.1.11 showed that majority of the respondents were Govt. Employees (62.5%)
Table 5.1.12 Marital Status-HDFC Life respondents
Marital
Frequency
Percent
Married
312
78.0
Unmarried
88
22.0
Total
400
100.0
4
Table 5.1.12 showed that the respondents of the HDFC Life had a greater percentage of
married customers (78%)
5.2
INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS- LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

(LIC)
Difference in the perceived Service quality and its five dimensions namely: tangibility,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy of LIC customers for different
categories of demographic variables.
5.2.1 Difference in the perceived service quality and its five dimensions for LIC
customers on the basis of Gender
To find out whether there was any difference between the perceived service quality and
its various dimensions on the basis of gender for LIC customers independent t-test was
performed. Since, the t-value is greater than the table value for all the dimensions of
service quality except for tangibility and reliability, the perception of male and female
customers vary significantly for dimensions namely responsiveness, assurance and
empathy.
Thus, hypothesis H1.1 pertaining to significant difference based on gender was
accepted for all the dimensions of service quality except for tangibility and reliability.
Table 5.2.1 T-test for the difference in the perceived service quality and its five
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Gender
Group Statistics
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Std.
Gender
Mean
Male
227
11.34
Deviation
1.246
Female
110
11.48
1.064
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
227
110
227
110
227
16.38
16.50
8.12
7.50
13.04
1.029
1.187
1.301
1.187
3.044
t-value
-1.089
-.917
4.379**
-2.247*
Female
Male
Empathy
Female
Male
Service quality
Female
** 0.01 level of significance
110
227
110
227
110
13.81
15.15
15.63
64.03
64.92
2.900
1.717
1.812
3.798
4.444
-2.329*
-1.809*
*0.05 level of significance

customers on the basis of Age
its various dimensions on the basis of age for LIC customers independent t-test was
performed. The t-value for service quality and all its dimensions was less than the table
value.
Thus, hypothesis H1.2 pertaining to significant difference in the perceived Service
quality and its various dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of age was not
accepted.
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Age
Group Statistics
Age
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service quality
35 Years
Above
35
Years
35 Years
Above
35
Years
35 Years
Above
35
Years
35 Years
Above
35
Years
35 Years
Above
35
Years
35 Years
Above
35
Years
Std.
t-value
-1.37
N
140
Mean
11.28
Deviation
1.264
197
11.46
1.132
140
16.46
1.034
197
16.39
1.118
140
7.99
1.317
197
7.87
1.283
140
13.43
2.862
197
13.19
3.124
140
15.29
1.768
197
15.31
1.759
140
64.44
3.846
197
64.23
4.172
.560
.867
.717
-.149
.487
customers on the basis of Income
its various dimensions on the basis of income for LIC customers independent t-test was
performed. Since the t-value is less than the table value for all the dimensions of service
quality except for tangibility.
quality and its various dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of income was not
accepted. It is excepted for tangibility only.
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Income
Group Statistics
Annual Household Income

5 Lacs
Tangibility
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
Reliability
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
Responsiveness
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
Assurance
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
Empathy
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
Service quality
Above 5 Lacs
Std.
Mean
144
11.51
1.077
193
11.29
1.262
144
16.41
1.118
193
16.42
1.059
144
7.80
1.260
193
8.01
1.319
144
13.31
3.048
193
13.27
2.999
144
15.41
1.756
193
15.22
1.764
144
64.44
4.167
193
64.22
3.942
Deviation
t-value
1.752
-.126
-1.496
.114
.965
.494
customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
its various dimensions on the basis of educational qualification for LIC customers
independent t-test was performed. Since the t-value is less than the table value for all
the dimensions of service quality except for tangibility.
quality and its various dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of qualification was
not accepted. It is excepted for tangibility only.
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
8
Group Statistics
Educational
Tangibility
Qualification
Graduate and Below
N
177
Post Graduate and Above

Reliability
Graduate and Below
177

Responsiveness
Assurance
Graduate and Below

Graduate and Below
Empathy
Graduate and Below
160
177
160
177
160
177

Service quality
160
Graduate and Below
160
177
160
Mea
Std.
n
11.5
Deviation
0
11.2
6
16.4
4
16.3
9
7.86
7.98
13.2
7
13.3
1
15.3
6
15.2
4
64.4
4
64.1
9
1.108
t-value
1.894
1.265
1.065
.396
1.105
1.272
1.325
3.063
-.842
-.126
2.972
1.759
.584
1.765
4.034
.562
4.046

customers on the basis of Profession
Table 5.2.5a depicts analysis of Variance based on profession for service quality and all
its dimensions. The calculated F is more than the table value for all the dimensions
except for assurance.
Hence, hypotheses H1.5 pertaining to significant difference in the perceived Service

quality and its various dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of profession was
accepted except for assurance.
Table 5.2.5a ANOVA-test for the difference in the perceived service quality and its
five dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Profession
ANOVA
Profession
Mean
Sum
Tangibility
Reliability
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Responsivenes
Between Groups
Within Groups
s
Total
Assurance
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Empathy
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Service quality
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
** 0.01 level of significance
of
Squar
Squares
df
43.692
14.564
432.159
475.852
9.179
333
336
3
1.298
384.827
333
1.156
394.006
14.057
550.779
564.837
10.839
3044.663
3055.501
43.589
997.539
1041.128
229.615
5241.412
5471.027
336
3
333
336
3
333
336
3
333
336
3
333
336
3.060
F
11.222*
*
2.648*
4.686
1.654
2.833*
3.613
9.143
.395
14.530
2.996
4.850**
76.538
15.740
4.863**

5.2.5b Mean and Standard Deviation of service Quality and its dimensions on the
basis of Profession
10
Profession
Dimension
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service Quality
Govt.
Private
Own
Employee
Employee
Business
N=162
Mean
11.54
16.49
7.82
13.37
15.48
64.70
N=57
Mean
10.63
16.05
8.37
12.89
14.65
62.60
N=71
Mean
11.70
16.49
7.80
13.35
15.65
65.00
std
1.087
1.070
1.295
3.162
1.777
4.172
std
1.397
1.288
1.397
2.901
1.631
3.845
Others
std
.901
.876
1.129
2.614
1.613
3.402
N=47
Mean
11.30
16.49
7.89
13.40
14.96
64.04
std
1.284
1.081
1.339
3.248
1.853
4.175
customers on the basis of Marital Status
its various dimensions on the basis of marital status for LIC customers independent ttest was performed. The t-value for service quality and all its dimensions was less than
the table value.
quality and its various dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of marital status was
not accepted.
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Marital Status
Marital Status
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
N
219
118
219
118
219
118
11
Mean
11.35
11.45
16.46
16.35
7.89
7.98
Std.
1.219
1.137
1.063
1.120
1.292
1.307
t-value
-.733
.869
-.654
Assurance
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Empathy
Service quality
219
118
219
118
219
118
13.38
13.12
15.27
15.36
64.35
64.26
2.966
3.111
1.786
1.718
4.006
4.106
.758
-.478
.181
5.3 DIFFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF LIC CUSTOMERS FOR

DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS:
5.3.1 Difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of
Gender
Independent T-test revealed (Table 5.3.1) that there was a significant difference in the
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of gender (t=-2.121). The
calculated t-value is greater than the table value.
Thus, Hypotheses H2.1 for significant difference based on gender was accepted.
Table 5.3.1 T-test for the difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC Customers
on the basis of Gender
Group Statistics
Customer
t-value
Satisfaction
Gender
Male
Female
*2.5% level of significance
N
227
110
Mean
52.04
54.95
Std.
10.866
12.248
-2.121*
5.3.2 Difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Age
Independent T-test revealed (Table 5.3.2) that there was no significant difference in the
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of age (t=-.356). The calculated tvalue is less than the table value.
Thus, Hypotheses H2.2 for significant difference based on gender was not accepted.
on the basis of Age
Group Statistics
Customer
Satisfaction
tN
Mean
12
Std.
value
Age
35 Years
140
Above
35
197
Years
52.74
10.715
53.18
11.886
-.356

Income
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of income (t=.027). The calculated
t-value is less than the table value.
Thus, Hypotheses H2.3 for significant difference based on income was not accepted.
on the basis of Income
Group Statistics
Customer
Household
t-value
Satisfaction
5 Lacs
Mean
Std.
144
53.01
11.726
Above 5 Lacs
193
52.98
11.180
Income
.027

Educational Qualification
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of qualification (t=.201). The
calculated t-value is less than the table value.
on the basis of Educational Qualification
Group Statistics
Customer
Educational
Qualification
Satisfaction
N
Graduate and
177
Below
PG
and 160
t-value
Mean
Std.
53.11
11.368
52.86
11.469
13
.201
Above
Profession
The ANOVA test indicated that there was a significant difference in the customer
satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of profession. (F calculated is greater than
the table value at 5% level of significance).
Hence, Hypotheses H2.5 for significant difference based on profession was accepted.
Table 5.3.5a ANOVA-test for the difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC
Customers on the basis of Profession
ANOVA
Profession
Customer
Sum
Satisfaction
Between
Squares
Groups
Within Groups
Total
of df
Mean
Square
811.499
270.500
42852.489
43663.988
333
336
128.686
2.102*
Table 5.3.5b Mean and Standard Deviation of service Quality and its dimensions
on the basis of Profession
Customer Satisfaction
Profession
Govt.
Private
Own
Employee
Employee
Business
N=162
N=57
N=71
Mean
54.19
std
11.724
Mean
49.82
std
12.341
Mean
53.10
Others
N=47
std
9.331
Mean
52.57
std
11.517

Marital Status
14
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of marital status (t=1.357). The
calculated t-value is less than the table value.
on the basis of Marital Status
Group Statistics
Customer
Satisfaction
Married
Unmarried
Marital
Status
5.4.
t-value
N
219
118
Mean
53.61
51.85
Std.
11.315
11.516
1.357
Relationship between service quality, its dimensions and customer
satisfaction for the entire group of LIC customers

Table 5.4.1a Correlation coefficients between service quality, its dimensions and
customer satisfaction for the entire group of LIC customers
N=337
Dimension
Correlation Coefficients
Tangibility
.022
Reliability
.936**
Responsiveness
-.851**
Assurance
.910**
Empathy
.378**
Service Quality Perceived

.829**
*.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
15
The correlation coefficients between service quality, its dimensions and Customer
Satisfaction indicate that there is high degree of positive correlation between them
except for tangibility dimension. Reliability (r=.936), assurance (r=.910), responsiveness
(r=-.851), and empathy (r=.378), taken in that order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. Reliability seems to be most effective for customer satisfaction;
empathy showed least effect on customer satisfaction and tangibility had no effect on
customer satisfaction for LIC respondents.
5.4.1b Regression Model between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction for
LIC Customers
Model Customer
Satisfaction
Service Quality
R Square (R2)
.979a
.958
Adj. R Square
( Adj. R2)
.957
F
1.50*
*p.01
5.4.1c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions
and Customer Satisfaction for the entire group of LIC customers
CUSTOMER
Standardized Coefficients
SATISFACTION
Beta
TANGIBILITY
-.016
-.726
RELIABILITY
.497
11.810*
RESPONSIVENESS
-.427
-18.618*
ASSURANCE
.155
3.467*
EMPATHY
-.032
-1.794
*p 0.1
16
The regression model between service quality and customer satisfaction was found
significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 95% of variance in service
quality and customer satisfaction model. The standardized coefficients for Reliability
(=.947), assurance (=.115), responsiveness (=-.427), and empathy (=-.032), taken
in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Hence, Hypothesis H3.1 for significant relationship between service quality, its
dimensions and Customer satisfaction is accepted for the entire customers of the LIC
other than tangibility dimension.
5.4.2 Relationship between Service Quality, its various dimensions and Customer
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Gender
Table
5.4.2a Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of gender.

Gender
Male
Female
227
110
Dimension
Correlation coefficients
Tangibility
-0.29
.112
Reliability
.923**
.962**
Responsiveness
-.803**
-.962**
Assurance
.910**
.915**
Empathy
.355**
.390**

.856**
17
.783**
Satisfaction on the basis of gender indicate that there is high degree of positive
correlation between them except for tangibility dimension. For male customers,
reliability (r=.923), assurance (r=.910), responsiveness (r=-.803), and empathy (r=.355),
taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. Reliability seems
to be the most effective dimension for male customers satisfaction; empathy showed
least effect on customer satisfaction and tangibility had no effect on male customer
satisfaction for LIC respondents.
On the other hand, for female customers reliability (r=.962), responsiveness (r=-.962),
assurance (r=.915), empathy (r= .390), taken in this order, significantly influenced the
female customer satisfaction. Reliability and responsiveness seems to be most effective
dimensions for female customers satisfaction; empathy showed least effect on
customer satisfaction and tangibility had no effect on female customers satisfaction for
LIC respondents.
Overall, the male customers of LIC were more satisfied as compared to the female
customers of LIC.
Table 5.4.2b Regression Models Characteristics between service quality and
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of gender
Model Customer
R Square
Male
.987a
.974
1.681*
Female
.966a
.933
365.82*
Satisfaction

and Customer Satisfaction for LIC customers on the basis of gender
Gender
Customer
Std.
Std.
18
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Coefficient
Coefficient
Beta
Male
-.002
.740
-.440
-.058
-.025
Beta
Female
-.014
.795
-.817
.182
-.045
-.097
9.817*
-18.905*
-.785
-1.457
-.377
11.810*
-11.216*
2.408*
-1.163
significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 97% and 93% of variance
in the regression model for male and female respondents respectively. For male
customers, the standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.740), assurance (=-.058),
responsiveness (=-.440), and empathy (=-.025), taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. For female customers, the standardized
coefficients for Reliability (=.795), assurance (=-.182), responsiveness (=-.817),
and empathy (=-1.163), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer
satisfaction. Tangibility dimension had no significant effect on customer satisfaction for
both male and female respondents.
Thus hypotheses H3.2: for significant relationship between Service quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of gender was
accepted.
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Age
(Table 5.4.3a) Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of age
Age
35 Years
> 35 Years
140
197
19
Dimension
Tangibility
.044
.004
Reliability
.910**
.954**
Responsiveness
-.803**
-.886**
Assurance
.876**
.933**
Empathy
.369**
.384**

.805**
.845**
The age moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

quality and its dimensions. (Table 5.4.3a) indicate that there is high degree of positive
correlation between them except for tangibility dimension. Respondents for the age
group less than or equal to 35 years, reliability (r=.923), assurance (r=.876),
responsiveness (r=-.803), and empathy (r=.369), taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. For the respondents of this age group, Reliability
seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy showed least effect and tangibility
had no effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for the respondents of other age group that is greater than 35 years,
again reliability (r=.954), assurance (r=.933), responsiveness (r=-.886), empathy (r= .
384), taken in this order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. Again
Reliability seems to be the most effective dimensions, empathy showed least effect on
customer satisfaction and tangibility had no effect on customers satisfaction for LIC
respondent this age group.

customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of age
20
Model Customer
R Square
35 Years
.966a
.933
374.917*
> 35 Years
.987a
.973
1.394*
Satisfaction

Age
Customer
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Std.
Coefficients
Beta
35 Years
-.023
.505
-.465
.139
-.054
Std.
T
Coefficients
-.470
6.465*
-10.579*
1.650*
-1.385
Beta
> 35 Years
-.012
.495*
-.402*
.162*
-.018
-.588
10.771
-16.003
3.365
-.998
in the regression model for the younger group that is less than or equal to 35 years and
the older group that is above 35 years respectively. For the younger age group the
standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.505), responsiveness (=-.465), assurance
(=.139), and empathy (=-.054), taken in that order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. For the older age group, the standardized coefficients for
Reliability (=.495), assurance (=.162), responsiveness (=-.402), and empathy
(=-.018), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Tangibility dimension had no significant effect on customer satisfaction for the
respondents of different age groups.
21
Thus, hypotheses H3.3: for significant relationship between Service quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of age was
accepted.
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of annual household income
Table 5.4.4a Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Income
Household Income
5 Lacs
> 5 Lacs
144
193
Dimension
Tangibility
.028
.018
Reliability
.941**
.932**
Responsiveness
-.878**
-.837**
Assurance
.910**
.911**
Empathy
.358**
.393**

.811**
.845**

The
household
income
moderated
correlation
coefficients
between
customer
satisfaction, service quality and its dimensions. (Table 5.4.4a) indicate that there is high
degree of positive correlation between them except for tangibility dimension.
Respondents from the lower income group that is less than or equal to 5 lacs p.a.,
taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For the
22
respondents of this income group, Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension,
empathy showed least effect and tangibility had no effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for the respondents of higher income group that is greater than 5
lacs p.a., again reliability (r=.932), assurance (r=.911), responsiveness (r=-.837),
empathy (r= .393), taken in this order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Again Reliability seems to be the most effective dimensions; empathy showed least
effect on customer satisfaction and tangibility had no effect on customers satisfaction
on the basis of income for LIC respondents.
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Income
Model Customer
R Square
5 lacs
.967a
.935
398.680*
> 5 lacs
.989a
.979
1.748*
Satisfaction

and Customer Satisfaction LIC customers on the basis of annual house hold
income
Income
Customer
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Std.
Coefficient
Beta
5 Lacs
-.016
.488
-.410
.151
-.059
Std.
T
Coefficient
-.418
6.034*
-8.522*
1.804
-1.869
Beta
> 5 Lacs
-.015
.500
-.439
.163
-.008
-.697
12.284*
-21.269*
3.797*
-.422
23
in the regression model for the low income group that is less than or equal to 5 lacs p.a.
and the higher group that is above 5 lacs p.a. respectively. For the low group the
(=.151), and empathy (=-.059), taken in that order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. For the higher income group, the standardized coefficients for
Reliability (=.500), assurance (=.163), responsiveness (=-.439), and empathy
(=-.008), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Tangibility dimension had no significant effect on customer satisfaction for the
respondents of different income groups.
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of income was
accepted.
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of
educational qualification
Graduate and Below
PG and Above
177
160
Dimension
Tangibility
.005
.036
Reliability
.936**
.937**
24
Responsiveness
-.850**
-.853**
Assurance
.916**
.904**
Empathy
.361**
.395**

.834**
.825**
The correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service quality and its
dimensions are moderated by different educational backgrounds. (Table 5.4.5a) indicate
that there is high degree of positive correlation between them except for tangibility
dimension. For Graduates and below respondents, reliability (r=..936), assurance
(r=.916), responsiveness (r=-.850), and empathy (r=.361), taken in that order,
significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For these respondents, Reliability
seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy showed least effect and tangibility
had no effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, PG and above respondents, again reliability (r=.937), assurance
(r=.904), responsiveness (r=-.853), empathy (r= .395), taken in this order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. Again Reliability seems to be the most effective
dimension; empathy showed least effect on customer satisfaction and tangibility had no
effect on customers satisfaction on the basis of educational backgrounds for LIC
respondents.

customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
Model Customer
R Square
Satisfaction
25
Graduate and
.973a
.947
608.185*
.985a
.971
1.035*
below
PG and above

and Customer Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Educational
Qualification
Std. CoeffCustomer
Graduation
Satisfaction
and Below
Beta
Tangibility
-.019
Reliability
.586
Responsiveness -.425
Assurance
.057
Empathy
-.043
Std. Coeff-
PG and above
-.587
6.89**
-10.950*
.665
-1.718
Beta
-.008
.466*
-.429*
.197*
-.022
-.279
10.583
-16.464
4.045
-.898
in the regression model for Graduates and below respondents and PG and above
respondents respectively. For graduates and below, the standardized coefficients for
Reliability (=.587), responsiveness (=-10.950), assurance (=.057), and empathy
(=.043), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For PG
and above, the standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.466), responsiveness
(=-.429), assurance (=.197), and empathy (=-.022), taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. Tangibility dimension had no significant effect on
customer satisfaction for the respondents of different education groups.
26
accepted.
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Profession
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of
profession
Profession
Govt.
Private
Own
Employee
Employee
Business
162
57
71
47
Dimension
Others
Tangibility
.024
-.107
.111
-.118
Reliability
.954**
.950**
.887**
.915**
Responsiveness
-.876**
-.872**
-.776**
-.804**
Assurance
.937**
.896**
.870**
.905**
Empathy
.464**
.269*
.324**
.185
.822**
.729**

.887**
.753**
Different profession groups moderated the correlation coefficients between customer

27
degree of positive correlation between them except for tangibility dimension. For Govt.
Employees, reliability (r=.954), assurance (r=.937), responsiveness (r=-.876), and
empathy (r=.464), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
For private employees, reliability (r=.950), assurance (r=.896), responsiveness (r=-.872)
and empathy (r=.269). For own business category reliability(r= .887), assurance (r= .
870), responsiveness (r= -.776) and empathy (r=.324), for others category reliability,
(r=.915), assurance (r=.905), responsiveness (r=-.804) and empathy (r=.185). For all
respondents, whether they are govt. employees, private employees, own business or
others, Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy showed least
effect and tangibility had no effect on customer satisfaction.
customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Profession
Model Customer
R Square
Govt. employees
.994a
.989
2.771*
Private employees
.985a
.971
1.035*
Own Business
.936a
.876
116.309*
Others
.957a
.916
89.873*
Satisfaction

and Customer Satisfaction for LIC customers on the basis of profession
Profession
Customer
Std. Coefficient
Satisfaction
Beta
Tangibility
Reliability
Govt. Emp.
-.008
.686
Std.
T
Coefficient
-.279
11.988*
Beta
Private Emp.
-.283
.570
-9.209*
4.398*
28
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
-.405
-.019
-.006
Customer
Std. Coefficient
Satisfaction
Beta
-20.416*
-.343
-.467
Coefficient
Beta
Own Business
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
.355
1.165
-.425
-.190
-.096
-.415
-.402*
.248
Std.
-2.026*
-16.003*
9.140*
Others
1.288
4.814*
-10.950*
-.784
-1.684
-.005
.784
-.426
-.133
-.126
-.064
1.660
-5.150*
-.280
-1.954
The regression model (table 5.4.6b) between service quality and customer satisfaction
was found significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 98%, 97%, 87%
and 91% of variance in the regression model for govt. employees, private employees,
own business and others respondents respectively. For govt. employees, the
standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.686), responsiveness (=-405), assurance
(=-.019), and empathy (=-.006). For private employees, the standardized coefficients
for Reliability (=.570), responsiveness (=-.415), assurance (=-.402), and empathy
(= .248). For own business category reliability (=1.165), responsiveness (=-.425),
assurance (=-.190) and empathy (=-.096) and for others category reliability (=.784),
responsiveness (=-.426), assurance (=-.133), empathy (=-.126) taken in these
orders, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
For all respondents, whether they are govt. employees, private employees, own
business or others, Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy
showed least effect and tangibility had no effect on customer satisfaction.
accepted.
29
Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Marital Status

dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of marital
status
Marital Status
Married
Unmarried
219
118
Dimension
Tangibility
.019
.038
Reliability
.941**
.929**
Responsiveness
-.859**
-.837**
Assurance
.918**
.898**
Empathy
.374**
.394**

.825**
.842**
Marital status moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

30
correlation between them except for tangibility dimension. For married customers
taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For married
respondents of , Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy showed
least effect and tangibility had no effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for unmarried customers, again reliability (r=.929), assurance
(r=.898), responsiveness (r=-837) and empathy (r= .394), taken in this order,
significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. Again Reliability seems to be the
most effective dimensions, empathy showed least effect on customer satisfaction and
tangibility had no effect on customers satisfaction.

customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
Model Customer
R Square
Married
.987a
.973
1.55*
Unmarried
.966a
.933
313.732*
Satisfaction

and Customer Satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of educational
qualification
Marital Status
Customer
Satisfaction
Std.
Coefficient
Std.
T
Coefficient
Beta
Married
Beta
Unmarried
31
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
-.012
.498
-.426
.159
-.016
-.587
11.625*
-19.647*
3.535*
-.910
-.025
.502
-.437
.141
-.060
-.488
5.734*
-7.805*
1.472
-1.547
was found significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 97% and 93%
of variance in the regression model for married and unmarried respondents respectively.
For married respondents, the standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.498),
responsiveness (=-.426), assurance (=.159), and empathy (=-.016). For unmarried
respondents coefficients for Reliability (=.502), responsiveness (=-7.805),
assurance (=1.472), and empathy (=-1.547), taken in this order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction.
For all respondents, whether they are married or unmarried, Reliability seems to be the
most effective dimension, empathy showed least effect and tangibility had no effect on
customer satisfaction.
accepted.
SECTION 5.5 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS- HDFC LIFE

5.5.1 Difference in the perceived service quality and its dimensions for the HDFC
Life customers on the basis of Gender
To find out whether there was any difference between the perception of male and
female customers of HDFC Life, independent t-test was performed. The t-value is
greater than the table value for tangibility, reliability, responsiveness and empathy
32
dimensions. And the t-value is less than the table value for overall service quality and
assurance dimensions.
Thus, hypothesis H4.1 pertaining to significant difference based on gender was partially
accepted.
dimensions for HDFC Life customers on the basis of Gender
Group Statistics
Gender
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service quality
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Std.
N
263
137
263
137
263
137
263
137
263
137
263
137
Mean
11.73
11.88
16.14
15.87
7.85
8.08
12.37
12.24
16.61
16.34
64.71
64.41
Deviation
.824
.587
.917
1.136
.906
1.078
2.769
2.577
.875
1.134
3.356
3.566
t-value
-2.043*
2.455*
-2.121*
.459
2.427*
.810
*5% level of significance

5.5.2 Difference in perceived service quality and its five dimensions for HDFC Life
on the basis of Age
To find out whether there was any difference between the perception of the customers
of HDFC Life, on the basis of age, independent t-test was performed. The t-value is less
than the table value for all the dimensions of service quality.
Thus, hypothesis H4.2 pertaining to significant difference based on age was not
accepted.
dimensions for HDFC Life customers on the basis of Age
33
Group Statistics
Age
Std.
t-value
-.660
35 Years
Above
N
191
35 209
Mean
11.75
11.80
Deviation
.773
.737
Reliability
Years
35 Years
Above
191
35 209
16.03
16.07
1.005
1.007
-.353
Responsiveness
Years
35 Years
Above
191
35 209
7.94
7.92
.982
.968
.141
Assurance
Years
35 Years
Above
191
35 209
12.14
12.50
2.810
2.595
-1.333
Empathy
Years
35 Years
Above
191
35 209
16.52
16.52
.989
.971
-.033
Service quality
Years
35 Years
Above
191
35 209
64.38
64.81
3.534
3.322
-1.269
Tangibility
Years
on the basis of Income
To find out whether there was any difference between the perceptions of the customers
of HDFC Life, on the basis of income, independent t-test was performed. The t-value is
less than the table value for tangibility, responsiveness and empathy dimensions of
service quality. But, for overall service quality, reliability and assurance the t-value is
greater than the table value.
Thus, hypothesis H4.3 pertaining to significant difference based on income was
accepted except for the dimension tangibility, responsiveness and empathy.
Table 5.5.3 T-test for difference in perceived service quality and its five
dimensions for HDFC Life on the basis of Income
34
Group Statistics
Annual
Household
Std.
t-
Tangibility
Income
5 Lacs
N
193
Mean
11.77
Deviation
.765
value
-.337
Reliability
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
207
193
11.79
15.93
.744
1.078
2.355*
Responsiveness
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
207
193
16.16
8.00
.920
1.031
1.385
Assurance
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
207
193
7.86
11.95
.914
2.919
2.697*
Empathy
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
207
193
12.68
16.45
2.439
1.075
-1.461
Service quality
Above 5 Lacs
5 Lacs
207
193
16.59
64.09
.876
3.711
2.921*
Above 5 Lacs
207
65.09
3.072
on the basis of Educational Qualification
of HDFC Life, on the basis of educational qualification, independent t-test was
performed. The t-value is less than the table value for tangibility, responsiveness and
empathy dimensions of service quality. But, for overall service quality, reliability and
assurance the t-value is greater than the table value.
Thus, hypothesis H4.3 pertaining to significant difference based on educational
qualification was accepted except for tangibility, responsiveness and empathy.
35
Table 5.5.4 T-test for difference in perceived service quality and its five
dimensions for HDFC Life on the basis of Educational Qualification
Group Statistics
Educational
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service quality
Std.
t-value
1.564
Qualification
N
Graduate
and 166
Mean
11.85
Deviation
.735
Below
Post Graduate 234
11.73
.764
and Above
Graduate
and 166
16.20
.903
Below
Post Graduate 234
15.94
1.061
and Above
Graduate
and 166
7.86
.946
Below
Post Graduate 234
7.98
.991
and Above
Graduate
and 166
12.73
2.401
Below
Post Graduate 234
12.04
2.868
and Above
Graduate
and 166
16.54
.912
Below
Post Graduate 234
16.50
1.024
and Above
Graduate
and 166
65.18
3.030
Below
Post Graduate 234
64.20
3.635
2.580*
-1.196
2.535*
.381
2.855*
and Above
36
Table 5.5.5a depicts one way ANOVA test among customers of different professions for
various dimensions of service quality. The calculated value of F is less than the table
value for all the dimensions of service quality.
Hence, hypotheses 4.5 for significant difference based on profession was not accepted.
Table 5.5.5a T-test for difference in perceived service quality and its five
dimensions for HDFC Life on the basis of Profession
ANOVA
Profession
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service quality
Sum
of
Mean
Between
Squares
.787
df
3
Square
.262
Groups
Within
225.853
396
.570
Groups
Total
Between
226.640
3.445
399
3
1.148
Groups
Within
399.555
396
1.009
Groups
Total
Between
403.000
1.330
399
3
.443
Groups
Within
376.710
396
.951
Groups
Total
Between
378.040
41.174
399
3
13.725
Groups
Within
2872.576
396
7.254
Groups
Total
Between
2913.750
.259
399
3
.086
Groups
Within
381.581
396
.964
Groups
Total
Between
381.840
68.075
399
3
22.962
37
F
.460
1.138
.466
1.892
.090
1.945
Groups
Within
4619.515
396
Groups
Total
4687.590
399
11.665
Profession
Dimension
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service Quality
Govt.
Private
Own
Employee
Employee
Business
N=250
Mean
11.78
16.06
7.92
12.36
N=96
Mean
11.79
16.06
7.88
12.27
N=28
Mean
11.89
16.21
8.00
13.07
16.53
64.65
std
.738
1.014
.981
2.718
.986
3.470
16.52
64.52
std
.767
.993
.965
2.743
.940
3.452
16.43
65.61
Others
std
.685
.995
1.018
2.276
.959
3.095
N=26
Mean
11.65
15.73
8.12
11.35
std
.936
.962
.909
2.66
16.54
7
1.10
63.38
4
3.03
4
customers on the basis of Marital Status
38
of HDFC Life, on the basis of marital status, independent t-test was performed. The tvalue is less than the table value for all the dimensions of service quality.
Hence, hypotheses 4.6 for significant difference based on marital status was not
accepted.
dimensions for LIC customers on the basis of Marital Status
Marital Status
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service quality
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
Married
Unmarried
N
312
88
312
88
312
88
312
88
312
88
312
88
Mean
11.76
11.86
16.04
16.07
7.92
7.98
12.32
12.34
16.54
16.43
64.58
64.68
Std.
.764
.714
.988
1.070
.945
1.072
2.660
2.864
.951
1.070
3.350
3.709
t-value
-1.225
-.184
-.480
-.060
.896
-.225
5.6 DIFFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF HDFC Life CUSTOMERS

FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS:
5.6.1 Difference in the customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis
of Gender
customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of gender. The calculated
value is greater than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.1 for significant difference based on gender was accepted.
39
Table 5.6.1 T-test for the difference in the customer satisfaction of HDFC Life
Customers on the basis of Gender
Group Statistics
Customer
Satisfaction
Gender
Male
Female
t-value
N
263
137
Mean
50.79
48.28
Std.
9.275
11.937
2.153*
5.6.2 Difference in the customer satisfaction of HDFC life customers on the basis
of Age
customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of age. The calculated value
is less than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.2 for significant difference based on age was not accepted.
Customers on the basis of Age
Group Statistics
Customer
Age
Satisfaction
N
35 Years
191
Above
35 209
tMean
49.91
49.95
Std.
10.191
10.460
value
-.040
Years
of Income
customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of income. The calculated
value is greater than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.3 for significant difference based on income was accepted.
40
Customers on the basis of Income
Group Statistics
Customer
Household
t-value
Satisfaction
5 Lacs
N
193
Mean
48.77
Std.
11.024
Above 5 Lacs
207
51.01
9.515
-2.171*
Income
of Educational Qualification
customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of qualification. The
calculated value is greater than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.4 for significant difference based on gender was accepted.
Customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
Group Statistics
41
Customer
Educational
Qualification
t-value
Satisfaction
Graduate and Below
PG and Above
N
166
234
Mean
51.36
48.92
Std.
9.526
10.753
2.384*
of Profession
ANOVA test revealed that there was no significant difference for the customers of HDFC
Life on the basis of profession. The F value is less than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.5 for significant difference based on qualification was not
accepted.
Table 5.6.5a ANOVA-test for the difference in the customer satisfaction of HDFC
Life Customers on the basis of Profession
ANOVA
Professio
n
Customer
Sum
of df
Satisfaction
Between
Squares
262.070
Groups
Within Groups
42225.107
Mean
Square
87.357
.819
39
106.629
6
42
Total
42487.178
39
9
Profession
Govt.
Private
Employee
Employee
N=250
N=96
Mean
50.08
std
10.44
Mean
50.31
Own Business Others
N=28
std
9.806
N=26
Mean
50.14
std
10.08
Mean
46.88
std
11.251
of Marital Status
customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of marital status. The
calculated value of t is less than the table value.
Thus, hypotheses H5.6 for significant difference based on marital status was not
accepted.
Customers on the basis of Marital Status
Group Statistics
Customer
Marital
Satisfaction
Married
t-value
N
312
Mean
49.94
43
Std.
10.174
.034
Status
Unmarried
88
49.90
10.880
5.7 REALATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY, ITS DIMENSIONS AND

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF THE HDFC LIFE CUSTOMERS
5.7.1
Relationship between service quality, its dimensions and customer
satisfaction for the entire group of HDFC Life customers

Table 5.7.1a Correlation coefficients between service quality, its dimensions and
customer satisfaction for the entire group of HDFC LIFE customers
N=400
Dimension
Correlation Coefficients
Tangibility
-.299**
Reliability
.936**
Responsiveness
-.833**
Assurance
.748**
Empathy
.777**
.784**
Satisfaction indicate that there is high degree of positive correlation between them.
Reliability (r=.936), responsiveness (r=-.833), empathy (r=.777), assurance (r=.748) and
tangibility (r=-.299), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer
satisfaction. Reliability seems to be most effective for customer satisfaction and
tangibility showed least effect on customer satisfaction for HDFC Life respondents.
5.7.1b Regression Model between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction for
HDFC LIFE Customers
Model Customer Satisfaction
Service Quality
*p.01
R
.973a
44
R Square
.946
F
1.383*

and Customer Satisfaction for the entire group of HDFC Life customers
CUSTOMER
Standardized Coefficients
SATISFACTION
Beta
TANGIBILITY
.045
2.515
RELIABILITY
.777
33.320*
RESPONSIVENESS
-.260
-9.291*
ASSURANCE
-.132
-6.308*
EMPATHY
.148
4.332*
significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 94% of variance in service
quality and customer satisfaction model. The standardized coefficients for Reliability
(=.777), responsiveness (=-.260), empathy (=.148), assurance (=-.132) and
tangibility (r=.045), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Hence hypothesis H6.1 for significant relationship between service quality, its
dimensions and Customer satisfaction is accepted for the entire customers of the HDFC
LIFE.
5.7.2Relationship between Service Quality, its various dimensions and Customer

Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Gender
Table 5.7.2a
Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC Life customers on the basis of

gender.
45
Gender
Male
Female
N
263
137
Dimension
Tangibility
-.316**
-.274**
Reliability
.933**
.937**
Responsiveness
-.816**
-.850**
Assurance
.794**
.706**
Empathy
.721**
.833**
.800**
.771
Satisfaction on the basis of gender indicate that there is high degree of positive
correlation between them. For male customers, reliability (r=.933), responsiveness
(r=-.816), assurance (r=.794), empathy (r=.721), and tangibility (r=-.316) taken in that
order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. Reliability seems to be the most
effective dimension for male customers satisfaction and tangibility showed least effect
on customer satisfaction on male customer satisfaction for HDFC Life respondents.
On the other hand, for female customers reliability (r=.937), responsiveness (r=-.850),
empathy (r= .833), assurance (r=.706), and tangibility (r=-274) taken in this order,
significantly influenced the female customer satisfaction. Reliability seems to be most
effective dimensions for female customers satisfaction and tangibility showed least
effect on female customers satisfaction for HDFC Life respondents.
Table 5.7.2b Regression Model between Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of gender
Model Customer
R Square
Male
.968a
.937
766.653*
Female
*p.01
.981a
.962*
661.745*
Satisfaction
46

and Customer Satisfaction for HDFC Life customers on the basis of gender
Gender
Customer
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
*p.01
Std.
Coefficient
Beta
Male
-.026
.829
-.365
-.154
-.028
Std.
T
Coefficient
-.789
24.561*
-8.826*
-4.750*
-.482
Beta
Female
.044
.740
-.180
-.131
.264
2.021
22.971*
-4.328*
-4.568*
5.952*
in the regression model for male and female respondents respectively. For male
customers, the standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.829), responsiveness
(=-.365), assurance (=-.154), empathy (=-.028) and tangibility (r=-.026) taken in that
order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For female customers, the
standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.740), empathy (=.264) responsiveness
(=-.180), assurance (=-.131), and tangibility (=.044) taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction.
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of gender
was accepted.
Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Age
age
47
Age
35 Years
35 Years
N
191
209
Dimension
Tangibility
-.314**
-.286**
Reliability
.938**
.933**
Responsiveness
-.842**
-.825**
Assurance
.751**
.751**
Empathy
.790**
.765**
.783**
.789**
The age moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

correlation between them. Respondents for the age group less than or equal to 35
years, reliability (r=.923), responsiveness (r=-.842), empathy (r=.790), assurance
(r=.876), and tangibility (r=-.314), taken in that order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. For the respondents of this age group, Reliability seems to be the
most effective dimension and tangibility had least effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for the respondents of other age group that is greater than 35 years,
again reliability (r=.933), responsiveness (r=-.825), empathy (r=.765), assurance
(r=.751), and tangibility (r=-.286), taken in this order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. Again Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension and
tangibility showed least effect on customers satisfaction for LIC respondent this age
group.

Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of age
Model Customer
R Square
Satisfaction
48
35 Years
.980a
.960
885.958*
> 35 years
*p.01
.967a
.935
586.670*

Age
Customer
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Std.
Coefficients
Beta
35 Years
.032
.749
-.301
-.106
.118
Std.
T
Coefficients
1.353
26.064*
-8.314*
-4.103*
2.610*
Beta
> 35 Years
.054
.806
-.226
-.157
.169
2.024
21.996*
-5.382*
-4.755*
3.396*
in the regression model for the younger group that is less than or equal to 35 years and
the older group that is above 35 years respectively. For the younger age group the
(=-.106), empathy (=.118) and tangibility (=.032), taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. For the older age group, the standardized
coefficients for Reliability (=.806), responsiveness (=-.226), assurance (=-.157),
empathy (=.169) and tangibility (=.054), taken in that order, significantly influenced
the customer satisfaction.
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of age
was accepted.
49
Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Annual Household Income
annual household income
Household Income
5 Lacs
5 Lacs
N
193
207
Dimension
Tangibility
-.308**
-.298**
Reliability
.935**
.935**
Responsiveness
-.850**
-.811**
Assurance
.735**
.758**
Empathy
.800**
.744**
.782**
.780**
The
household
income
moderated
correlation
coefficients
between
customer
degree of positive correlation between them except for tangibility dimension.
Respondents from the lower income group that is less than or equal to 5 lacs p.a.,
reliability (r=.935), responsiveness (r=-.850) assurance (r=.735), empathy (r=.800), and
tangibility (r=-.308), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer
satisfaction. For the respondents of this income group, Reliability seems to be the most
effective dimension and tangibility showed least effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for the respondents of higher income group that is greater than 5
lacs p.a., again reliability (r=.935), responsiveness (r=-.811) assurance (r=.758),
empathy (r=.744), and tangibility (r=-.298), taken in this order, significantly influenced
the customer satisfaction. Again Reliability seems to be the most effective dimensions
50
and empathy showed least effect on customer satisfaction on the basis of income for
LIC respondents.
Table 5.7.4b Table 5.7.3b Regression Model between Service Quality and
Customer Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of annual
household income
*p.01
Model Customer
R Square
5 lacs p.a.
.970a
.942
602.688*
> 5 lacs p.a.

*p.01
.976a
.953
814.989*
Satisfaction
Table 5.7.4c
Regression coefficients between service Quality, its various

annual household income
Income
Customer
Satisfaction
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Std. CoeffBeta
5 Lacs
.035
.731
-.266
-.106
.151
Std. Coeff
T
1.350
21.942
-5.949
-3.543
2.916
Beta
> 5 Lacs
.057
.853
-.254
-.187
.146
T
2.135
25.480
-7.150
-6.186
3.155
in the regression model for the low income group that is less than or equal to 5 lacs p.a.
and the higher group that is above 5 lacs p.a. respectively. For the low group the
51
(=-.106), empathy (=.151) and tangibility (=.035) taken in that order, significantly
influenced the customer satisfaction. For the higher income group, the standardized
coefficients for Reliability (=.853), responsiveness (=-.254), assurance (=-.187),
empathy (=.146) and tangibility (=.057) taken in that order, significantly influenced the
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of age
was accepted.
Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Educational Qualification
Graduate and Below
PG and Above
N
166
234
Dimension
Tangibility
-.402**
-.256**
Reliability
.933**
.936**
Responsiveness
-.840**
-.830**
Assurance
.781**
.726**
Empathy
.819**
.758**
.783**
.779**
The correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service quality and its
dimensions are moderated by different educational backgrounds. (Table 5.7.5a) indicate
52
that there is high degree of positive correlation between them. For Graduates and below
respondents, reliability (r=.933), responsiveness (r=-.840), assurance (r=.781), empathy
(r=.819) and tangibility (r= -.402),
taken in that order, significantly influenced the
customer satisfaction. For these respondents, Reliability seems to be the most effective
dimension and tangibility showed least effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, PG and above respondents, again reliability (r=.936),
responsiveness (r=-.830), assurance (r=.726), empathy (r=.758) and tangibility (r=
-.256) taken in this order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. Again
Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension and tangibility showed least effect
on customer satisfaction on the basis of educational backgrounds for LIC respondents.
Table 5.7.5b
Regression Model between Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of Educational Qualification

Model Customer
R Square
.979a
.958
728.411*
.970a
.941
733.346*
Satisfaction
Graduates and
Below
PG and Higher
*p.01
Table 5.7.5c

Std.
Customer
Coefficients
Satisfaction
Graduation
Std.
T
Coefficients
PG and above
and Below
53
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Beta
.032
.923
-.249
-.277
.142
Beta
.043
.753
-.270
-.105
.132
1.268
19.891*
-6.823*
-6.915*
3.036*
1.717*
26.262*
-6.708*
-3.997*
2.732
in the regression model for Graduates and below respondents and PG and above
respondents respectively. For graduates and below, the standardized coefficients for
Reliability (=.923), assurance (=-.277), responsiveness (=-.249) and empathy
(=.142),
taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
Tangibility dimension is not significant. For PG and above, the standardized coefficients
for Reliability (=..043), responsiveness (=-.270), assurance (=-.105), and empathy
(=-.132) and tangibility (=.043) taken in that order, significantly influenced the
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of
educational qualification was accepted.
Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Profession
Profession
Profession
Govt.
N
Dimension
Private
Employee
Employee
250
96
54
Own
Others
Business
28
26
Tangibility
-.281**
-.297**
Reliability
.935**
.927**
Responsiveness
-.841**
-.817**
Assurance
.762**
.747**
Empathy
.786**
.760**
.796**
.773**
-.373**
.928**
-.750**
.758**
.778**
768**
-.449*
.995**
-.914**
.634**
.788**
.748**

Different profession groups moderated the correlation coefficients between customer
degree of positive correlation between them. For Govt. Employees, reliability (r=.935),
responsiveness (r=-.841), empathy (r= .786), assurance (r= .762) and tangibility (r=
-.281), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. For private
employees, reliability (r=.927), responsiveness (r=-.817), empathy (r=.786), assurance
(r=.762) and tangibility (r= -.297). For own business category reliability (r=.928),
empathy (r=.778),, assurance (r=.758), responsiveness (r=.750) and tangibility (r=
-.373).
for others category reliability, (r=.995),
responsiveness (r=-.914), empathy
(r=.788) assurance (r=.634) and tangibility (r=-.449).

business or others, Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension and tangibility
showed least effect on customer satisfaction.

Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of Profession
Model Customer
R Square
Govt. employees
.971a
.943
807.103*
Private employees
.974a
.950
338.508*
Satisfaction
55
Own Business
.979a
.959
102.137*
Others
.957a
.916
89.873*
Table 5.7.6c

profession
Profession
Customer
Std. Coefficient
Satisfaction
Beta
Std.
T
Coefficient
Beta
56
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Govt. Emp.
.049
.760
-.251
-.125
.166
Customer
Std. Coefficient
Satisfaction
Beta
2.126
24.393*
-6.778*
-4.432*
3.719*
Coefficient
Beta
Own Business
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
-.013
1.112
-.179
-.414
.130
Private Emp.
.018
.770
-.310
-.123
.106
Std.
.531
17.043*
-5.689*
-2.890*
1.627
Others
-.196
9.322*
-1.846
-3.854*
1.028
.249
1.026
.323
-.133
-.126
3.100*
1.273*
2.063*
-.280
-1.954
was found significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 94%, 95%, 95%
and 91% of variance in the regression model for govt. employees, private employees,
own business and others respondents respectively. For govt. employees, the
standardized coefficients for Reliability (=..760), responsiveness (=-251), assurance
(=-.125), and empathy (=.166). Tangibility dimension was not significant for govt.
employees. For private employees, the standardized coefficients for Reliability
(=.770), responsiveness (=-.310), assurance (=-.123), and empathy (= .106).
Tangibility was again not significant. For own business category reliability (=1.112) and
responsiveness (=-.179). For own business category assurance, empathy were not
significant. And for others category reliability (=1.026), responsiveness (=-.323),
assurance (=-.133), empathy (=-.126) and tangibility (=3.100) taken in these orders,
significantly influenced the customer satisfaction.
business or others, Reliability seems to be the most effective dimension, empathy
showed least effect and tangibility had no effect on customer satisfaction except for the
respondents of others category tangibility dimension was significant.
57
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of
profession was accepted.
Satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of Marital Status
marital status
Marital Status
Married
Unmarried
N
312
88
Dimension
Tangibility
-.279**
-.376**
Reliability
.936**
.935**
Responsiveness
-.827**
-.852**
Assurance
.743**
.765**
Empathy
.751**
.857**
.782**
.789**
Marital status moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

correlation between them except for tangibility dimension. For married customers
reliability (r=.936), assurance (r=.743), responsiveness (r=-.827), and empathy (r=.751)
and tangibility (r=-.279), taken in that order, significantly influenced the customer
58
satisfaction. For married respondent, Reliability seems to be the most effective

dimension, and tangibility showed least effect on customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, for unmarried customers, again reliability (r=.935), empathy (r= .
857), responsiveness (r=-852), assurance (r=.765), and tangibility (r=-.376) taken in this
order, significantly influenced the customer satisfaction. Again Reliability seems to be
the most effective dimension and tangibility showed least effect on customer
satisfaction.
Table 5.7.7b
Regression Model between Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction for HDFC LIFE Customers on the basis of Marital Status

Model Customer
R Square
Married
.971a
.942
996.756*
Unmarried
*p.01
.980a
.961
406.321*
Satisfaction
Table 5.7.7c

profession
Marital Status
Customer
Std.
Satisfaction
Coefficient
Std.
Coefficient
59
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Beta
Married
.047
.787
-.269
-.133
.127
2.163
29.506*
-8.246*
-5.489*
3.225*
Beta
Unmarried
.039
.725
-.215
-.121
.241
1.221
14.960*
-3.943*
-2.870*
3.549*
was found significant. R2 the coefficient of determination was explaining 94% and 96%
of variance in the regression model for married and unmarried respondents respectively.
For married respondents, the standardized coefficients for Reliability (=.787),
responsiveness (=-.269), assurance (=-.133), and empathy (=.127). For unmarried
respondents coefficients for Reliability (=.725), responsiveness (=.215), assurance
(=-.121), and empathy (=.241), taken in this order, significantly influenced the
For all respondents, whether they are married or unmarried, Reliability seems to be the
most effective dimension, empathy showed least effect and tangibility had no effect on
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of marital
status was accepted.
5.8 COMPARISON OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (LIC) AND

HDFC LIFE CUSTOMERS
60
For the comparative study of public and private Life Insurers on the basis of the
relationship between service Quality and Customer satisfaction the following
hypotheses were considered.
5.8.1 Difference in the perceived Service quality and its five dimensions for LIC
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of Gender
The t-test (Table5.8.1) indicated that there was significant difference in the perception of
service quality for male customers of LIC and HDFC Life for all its five dimensions. For
the female customers there is significant difference in the perceptions for tangibility,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. There is no significant difference for
overall service quality.
Thus hypothesis H7.1, for significant difference in the perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of gender is
accepted.
61
Table 5.8.1 T-test comparing the perceived service quality and its dimensions for
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of gender
Gender
Me
Dimension
Tangibility
Reliability
Male
an
LIC
22
11.3 1.24
HDFC
26
11.7
Life
LIC
22
16.
1.02
38
HDFC
26
16.
Life
14
LIC
22
8.1
1.30
HDFC
26
7.8
Life
LIC
22
13.
3.04
04
HDFC
26
12.
2.76
Life
37
Responsiven
ess
Assurance
tStd.
6
.824
Me
value
t-
Female
an
LIC
11
11.4 1.0
4.027* HDFC
13
11.8 .
Life
587
LIC
11
16.
1.1
50
87
4.235
HDFC
13
15.
1.1
Life
87
36
LIC
11
7.5
1.1
87
HDFC
13
8.0
1.0
Life
78
LIC
11
13.
2.9
81
00
4.437
HDFC
13
12.
2.5
Life
24
77
2.642*
.917
2.641*
.906
2.536*
62
Std.
64
value
3.481
*
3.977
*
LIC
Empathy
Service
22
15.
1.71
15
HDFC
26
16.
Life
61
LIC
22
64.
3.79 -
03
HDFC
26
64.
3.35
Life
71
quality
LIC
11.63
.875 4*
11
15.
1.8
63
12
HDFC
13
16.
1.1
Life
34
34
LIC
11
64.
4.4
92
44
HDFC
13
64.
3.5
Life
41
66
2.087*
3.614
*
.976
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of Age
The t-test (table 5.8.2) indicated that there was significant difference in the perceptions
of service quality of LIC and HDFC Life customers for all dimensions of service quality
other than responsiveness and overall service quality for both the age groups of LIC
and HDFC Life customers.
Thus hypothesis H7.2 for significant difference in the perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of age was
accepted.
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of age
Age
Dimensio
35
Years
Tangibility LIC
HDFC
>35
N
Mean
140 11.28
191 11.75
Std.
t-value
years
1.26
-3.942* LIC
4
.773
HDFC
63
Mea
t-
Std.
value
19
11.4
1.13 -
20
11.8
.737 *
3.584
Life
LIC
Reliability
HDFC
Life
LIC
Responsi
veness
HDFC
Life
LIC
Assuranc
e
HDFC
Life
LIC
Empathy
HDFC
Life
LIC
Service
quality
HDFC
Life
140 16.46
191 16.03
140 7.99
191 7.94
140 13.43
191 12.14
140 15.29
191 16.52
140 64.44
191 64.38
Life
LIC
19
16.3 1.11
HDFC
20
16.0 1.00 *
Life
1.31
LIC
19
1.03
4
1.00
3.744*
.422
7.87
3.061
7
1.28
3
-.489
HDFC
20
Life
LIC
19
13.1 3.12
HDFC
20
12.5 2.59 *
Life
1.76
LIC
19
15.3 1.75
HDFC
20
16.5
Life
LIC
19
64.2 4.17
HDFC
20
64.8 3.32 1.557
Life
.982
2.86
2
2.81
4.090*
-7.440*
.989
3.84
6
3.53
.159
7.92 .968
2.432
8.487
.971 *
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of Income
On comparing the individual income groups of LIC and HDFC Life the t-test (Table
5.8.3) indicated that there is a significant difference in tangibility, reliability, assurance
and empathy dimensions of service quality for the age group of less than or equal to 5
Lacs. For overall service quality and responsiveness dimension, there is no significant
64
difference. For the other income group of greater than or equal to 5 Lacs, there is a
significant difference for all the dimensions of service quality other than responsiveness.
Thus hypothesis H7.3 for significant difference in the perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of income is
accepted.
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of annual household income
Annual household Income

tDimensio
n
Tangibilit
y
an
Std.
value >5L
LIC
14
11.
1.07
LIC
51
19
11.
77
14
16.
1.11
41
HD
FC
HD
FC
Life
LIC
Responsi
veness
HD
FC
Life
-2.401* HDF
C
Life
19
15.
1.07
93
14
7.8
1.26
19
8.0
1.03
N
19
3
.765
LIC
3.97
7*
value
Mea
LIC
t-
5L
Life
Reliabilit
Me
HDF
C
Life
LIC
20
7
1.56
HDF
C
Life
65
11.29
Std.
1.26
2
11.79 .744
16.4
1.05
20
16.1
19
20
7
4.804
19
8.01
.920
2.620
*
1.31
9
1.275
7.86
.914
LIC
Assuranc
e
HD
FC
Life
LIC
Empathy
HD
FC
Life
LIC
Service
quality
HD
FC
Life
14
13.
3.04
31
19
11.
2.91
95
14
15.
1.75
41
19
16.
1.07
45
14
64.
4.16
44
19
64.
3.71
09
LIC
4.13
9*
HDF
C
Life
LIC
6.25
HDF
9*
C
Life
LIC
.813
HDF
C
Life
19
13.2
2.99
20
12.6
2.43
19
15.2
1.76
20
16.5
19
64.2
3.94
20
65.0
3.07
2.810
*
9.705
.876
2.433
*
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of educational qualification
The t-test indicated that there was significant difference in the service quality
perceptions for tangibility, reliability and empathy for graduates and below group of LIC
and HDFC Life customers. For overall service quality, assurance and responsiveness
there is no significant difference. For the Post graduates and above there is significant
difference for tangibility, reliability, assurance and empathy dimension and there was no
significant difference for responsiveness and overall service quality of both LIC and
HDFC Life customers.
Hence hypothesis H7.4 for significant difference in the perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of educational
backgrounds was accepted
66
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of qualification
Grad
t-
and
Tangibility
Reliability
Assurance
Empathy
valu
PG and
Higher
Std.
LIC
16
11.2
1.26
HDFC
23
11.7
Life
LIC
16
16.3 1.10
HDFC
23
15.9 1.06 *
Life
17
LIC
16
below
d.
LIC
17
11.5
17
HDFC
16
11.8
16
Life
LIC
17
16.4 17
HDFC
16
16.2 16
Life
LIC
17
7
Responsiven
ess
Mea St
7.86
3.43
2*
2.27
4*
.025
HDFC
16
Life
LIC
17
13.2 17
HDFC
16
12.7 16
Life
LIC
17
15.3 17
7.91
7.86
16
67
7.98
tvalue
4.244
.764 *
4.059
1
1.32
5
.022
HDFC
23
Life
LIC
16
13.3 2.97
HDFC
23
12.0 2.86 *
Life
LIC
16
15.2 1.76 -
1.83
1
Mea
7.98 .991
4.238
8.143
HDFC
16
16.5 16
Life
LIC
17
64.4 17
HDFC
16
65.1 16
Life
Service
quality
0*
1.94
3
HDFC
23
16.5 1.02
Life
LIC
16
64.1 4.04
HDFC
23
64.2 3.63
Life
-.023
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of profession
The test analysis (table 5.8.5) found that when two insurers LIC and HDFC Life were
compared with each other on the basis of profession the perception of service quality
differed significantly for different profession groups. For Govt. employees there is a
significant difference for the dimensions tangibility, reliability, assurance and empathy
and for overall service quality and responsiveness there is no significant difference. For
private employees, there is a significance difference for the dimensions of tangibility,
responsiveness, empathy and overall service quality. There was no significant
difference for other dimensions that are reliability, and assurance. For own business
category there is no significant difference for all the dimensions of service quality other
than empathy. And for the group others, there is significance difference for reliability,
assurance and empathy dimension of service quality. For overall service quality,
tangibility and responsiveness there was no significant difference.
Thus, hypothesis H7.5, for significant difference in the perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of Occupation was
partially accepted.
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of profession
Profession
68
Priva
te
Govt.
Dimens
Emplo
ion
yees
LIC
Tangibili
ty
HDFC
Life
LIC
Reliabili
ty
HDFC
Life
Respon
sivenes
s
LIC
HDFC
Life
LIC
Assuran
ce
HDFC
Life
LIC
Empath
y
HDFC
Life
Service
LIC
quality
HDFC
Empl
tN
Mean
162 11.54
250 11.78
162 16.49
250 16.06
162 7.82
250 7.92
162 13.37
250 12.36
162 15.48
250 16.53
162 64.70
250 64.65
oyee
Std. value s
1.0
87
.
738
2.455
*
1.0
LIC
HDF
C Life
LIC
70
4.102
1.0
HDF
14
C Life
1.2
LIC
95
.
-.865
HDF
981
C Life
3.1
LIC
62
3.331
2.7
18
1.7
77
.
986
4.1
HDF
C Life
6.843
*
.131
LIC
HDF
C Life
LIC
72
3.4
t-
HDF
69
Mean
57
10.63
96
11.79
57
16.05
96
16.06
57
8.37
96
7.88
57
12.89
96
12.27
57
14.65
96
16.52
57
62.60
96
64.52
Std
valu
1.3
97
.
767
5.77
5*
1.2
88
-.05
993
1.3
97
2.35
4*
965
2.9
01
1.31
2.7
43
1.6
31
.
940
7.91
8*
3.8
45
3.10
3.4
8*
Life
70
C Life
52
Own
Dimens
Busine
ion
ss
LIC
Tangibili
ty
HDFC
Life
LIC
Reliabili
ty
HDFC
Life
Respon
sivenes
s
LIC
HDFC
Life
LIC
Assuran
ce
HDFC
Life
LIC
Empath
y
HDFC
Life
LIC
Service
quality
HDFC
Life
ttN
Mean
71
11.70
28
11.89
71
16.49
28
16.21
71
7.80
28
8.00
71
13.35
28
13.07
71
15.65
28
16.43
71
65.00
28
65.61
Other
Std. value s
.
LIC
901
1.123 HDF
685
C Life
LIC
876
.
1.297
HDF
995
C Life
1.1
LIC
29
1.0
-.841
HDF
18
C Life
2.6
LIC
14
2.2
.529
76
1.6
13
.
959
C Life
2.960
*
3.4
02
3.0
95
HDF
LIC
HDF
C Life
LIC
-.854
HDF
C Life
70
Mean
47
11.30
26
11.65
47
16.49
26
15.73
47
7.89
26
8.12
47
13.40
26
11.35
47
14.96
26
16.54
47
64.04
26
63.38
Std
valu
1.2
84
.
936
1.35
8
1.0
81
3.08
6*
962
1.3
39
-.83
909
3.2
48
2.91
2.6
6*
67
1.8
53
1.1
04
4.56
6*
4.1
75
3.0
34
.733
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of marital status
As per the t-value (table 5.8.6) the difference was significant for tangibility, reliability and
empathy and no significance difference for overall service quality, assurance and
responsiveness dimensions of service quality. For the unmarried customers the
difference was significant for the tangibility and empathy dimension only, for reliability,
assurance, responsiveness and overall service quality there was no significance
difference
Thus hypothesis H7.6 for significant difference in perceived Service quality and its
various dimensions for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of marital status was
partially accepted.
LIC and HDFC Life on the basis of marital status
Marital Status
tMea
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiven
valu
Unmarri
ed
Std.
LIC
11
11.4
1.13
Married
Std.
LIC
21
11.3
1.21
HDFC
31
11.7
Life
LIC
21
16.4 1.06
HDFC
31
16.0
Life
LIC
21
7.89 1.29 -.301 LIC
4351
.764 *
3
.988
HDFC
Life
LIC
4.58
2*
HDFC
Life
71
Mea
88
11.8
6
t-
16.3 1.12
11
16.0 1.07
7
3.203
.714 *
11
88
value
1.816
7.98 1.30 .035
9
ess
Assurance
Empathy
HDFC
31
Life
LIC
21
13.3 2.96
HDFC
31
12.3 2.66 1*
HDFC
Life
Life
LIC
21
15.2 1.78
HDFC
31
16.5
Life
LIC
21
64.3 4.00
HDFC
31
64.5 3.35
Life
Service
quality
2
HDFC
7.92 .945
Life
LIC
4.24
9.65
.951 3*
LIC
HDFC
Life
LIC
-.715
HDFC
Life
7
1.07
88
7.98
11
13.1 3.11
88
12.3 2.86
4
11
15.3 1.71
88
16.4 1.07
3
11
64.2 4.10
88
64.6 3.70
8
1.85
5.474
*
-.766
5.9 DIFFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF LIC AND HDFC-LIFE

CUSTOMERS
5.9.1 Difference in the Customer Satisfaction for the entire group of LIC and HDFC
Life customers
The T- test indicated (Table 5.9.1) that there was a significant difference in the customer
satisfaction of LIC and HDFC Life respondents. The overall satisfaction of LIC
customers was more than the HDFC Life customers.
Thus, hypothesis H8.1 for significant difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC and
HDFC Life was accepted
Table 5.9.1 T-test comparing the Customer Satisfaction for the entire group of LIC
and HDFC Life customers
72
LIC
HDFC Life
Mean
Std. Deviation
337
11.39
1.190
400
11.78
t-value
3.792*
.754
5.9.2 Difference in the Customer satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers
on the basis of gender
The t- test indicated (Table 5.9.2) that there was a significant difference in the customer
satisfaction of LIC and HDFC Life respondents on the basis of gender. The male and
female respondents of LIC were more satisfied than the male and female respondents
of HDFC Life.
HDFC Life customers on the basis of gender was accepted.
Table 5.9.2 T-test comparing the Customer Satisfaction for LIC and HDFC Life
customers on the basis of gender
Gender
tMea
Dimension
Male
LIC
Customer
HDF
Satisfactio
Life
Std.
22
52.0
10.86
26
50.7
9.275
valu
Femal
LIC
1.35
HDFC
Life
Mea
t-
Std.
11
54.9
12.24
13
48.2
11.93
value
4.307
*
on the basis of age
It was observed that when the customer satisfaction of the two insurers on the basis of
age groups were compared, the t-values (Table 5.9.3) were significant for both the age
73
groups of LIC and HDFC Life customers. In both the cases the LIC customers were
more satisfied than HDFC Life customers.
Thus, hypothesis H8.3 for significant difference in the Customer satisfaction of the LIC
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of age was accepted.
customers
Age
35
>35
Year
Dimension
LIC
Customer
HDF
Satisfactio
Life
Mea
N
Std.
14
52.7
10.71
19
49.9
10.19
t-
Year
value
LIC
HDF
2.419
Life
Mea
t-
Std.
19
53.1
11.88
20
49.9
10.46
value
2.896
*
on the basis of income
As per the analysis vide (Table 5.9.4) it is clear that there is a significant difference in
the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of income. In the income group
less equal to 5 Lacs LIC customers were more satisfied as compared to HDFC Life
customers. In the other income group that is more than 5 Lacs there was no significant
difference in the customer satisfaction of both LIC and HDFC Life.
Hence, hypothesis H8.4 for significant difference in the Customer satisfaction of the LIC
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of income was partially accepted.
customers on the basis of household income
74
Annual household Income

tMea
Dimension
5L
LIC
Customer
HDF
Satisfactio
Life
t-
Std.
14
53.0
11.72
19
48.7
11.02
Mea
value
> 5L
LIC
HDF
3.370
Life
valu
Std.
19
52.9
11.18
20
51.0
9.515
1.88
6
on the basis of educational backgrounds
It was observed that as per the t-test (Table 5.9.5) that there was no significant
difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC and HDFC Life customers for the
education group graduation and below. T-value is less than the table value. In the other
group that was Post graduates and above customers of LIC and HDFC Life, there was a
significant difference in the customer. The LIC customers were more satisfied than the
HDFC Life customers.
Thus the significant t-values supported the hypothesis H8.5 which stated that there
would be a significant difference in the Customer satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life
customers on the basis of educational backgrounds.
customers on the basis of education
Education
Dimension
Grad
and
below
Mea
n
Std.
t-
PG
valu
and
abov
75
Mea
n
Std.
tvalue
e
LIC
Customer
Satisfactio
HDFC
Life
17
53.1
11.36
16
51.3
9.526
LIC
1.55
5
160
HDF
C
234
LIFE
52.8
11.46
48.9
10.75
3.434
*
on the basis of profession
The test indicated that there was significant difference in the satisfaction of customers
on the basis of occupation for Govt. employees and others group of customers. T-value
is greater than the table value. For Govt. Employees (t=3.621**) and others group
(t=2.052**). For Private Employees (t=1.341) and Own business category (t=1.341)
which is less than the table value for T.
HDFC Life customers on the basis of occupation was partially accepted.
customers on the basis of profession
Govt.
Employ
ee
Mean
Std.
t-
Priva
value te
Empl
76
Mea
n
Std.
t-value
oyee
LIC
16
2
HDFC
Life
Custo
mer
Satisf
action
25
0
54.19
50.08
11.7
24
10.4
LIC
3.62
1*
48
57
HDF
C
96
Life
49.8
12.3
41
50.3
9.80
-.255
Own
Busine
ss
LIC
tN
Mean
71
53.10
HDFC
Life
28
50.14
Std.
value rs
9.33
1
10.0
80
Othe
LIC
1.34
1
Mea
N
47
HDF
C
Life
26
Std.
52.5
11.5
17
46.8
11.2
51
t-value
2.052*
on the basis of marital status
It was observed (table 5.9.7) that there was a significant difference in customer
satisfaction for married customers of LIC and HDFC life basis of marital status. The LIC
customers are more satisfied than HDFC Life customers. For unmarried customers
there was no significance difference in the customer satisfaction for both LIC and HDFC
Life customers as the t value is less than the table value (t=1.241).
Hence, hypothesis H8.7 for significant difference in the Customer satisfaction of the LIC
and HDFC Life customers on the basis of marital status was partially accepted.
77
customers on the basis of marital status
Marital Status
tMarrie
d
Customer
Satisfacti
on
LIC
HDFC
Life
Mea
N
219
312
t-
Unmarri
Std. value
ed
53.6
11.
315
3.833
LIC
49.9
10.
HDFC
174
valu
N
11
Life
Mean
51.85
88 49.90
Std.
11.5
16
1.24
10.8
80
5.10.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY ITS VARIOUS DIMENSIONS

AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP OF LIC AND HDFC
LIFE CUSTOMERS:
The correlation (Table 5.10.1) revealed that service quality and customer satisfaction
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers except the tangibility
dimension of service quality for LIC.
Thus, hypothesis H9.1 for significant relationship between Service Quality, its various
dimensions and Customer satisfaction for the entire group of the LIC and HDFC LIFE
customers was accepted.
78
Table
5.10.1 Correlation coefficients between service quality, its various
dimensions and customer satisfaction for the entire sample of LIC and HDFC Life
customers.
Dimension
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Service Quality
N
LIC
.022
.936**
-.851**
.910**
.378**
.829**
337
HDFC LIFE
-.299**
.936**
-.833**
.748**
.777**
.784**
400
5.10.2 Relationship between Service quality, its various dimensions and customer
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of gender
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of gender,
except the tangibility dimension of service quality for male and female customers of LIC.
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the
basis of gender was accepted.
Table 5.10.2 Correlation coefficients between service quality, its various

dimensions and customer satisfaction for LIC and HDFC Life customers on the
basis of gender
Gender
Dimension
LIC
HDFC LIFE
79
LIC
HDFC LIFE
Male
Male
Female
Female
Tangibility
-.029
-.316**
.112
-.274**
Reliability
.923**
.933**
.962**
.937**
Responsiveness
-.803**
-.816**
-.962**
-.850**
Assurance
.910**
.794**
.915**
.706**
Empathy
.355**
.721**
.390**
.833**
Service Quality
.856**
.800*
.783**
.771**
227
263
110
137
**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of age
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of age,
except the tangibility dimension of service quality for both the age groups of LIC
customers.
dimensions and Customer satisfaction of the LIC bank and HDFC LIFE customers on
the basis of age groups was accepted.
basis of age
Age (Years)
Dimension
LIC
HDFC
LIC
HDFC LIFE
>35 Years
> 35 Years
LIFE
35 35 Years
80
Years
Tangibility
.044
-.314**
.004
-.286**
Reliability
.910**
.938**
.954**
.933**
Responsiveness
.803**
-.842**
-.889**
-.825**
Assurance
.876**
.751**
.933**
.751**
Empathy
.369**
.790**
.384**
.765**
Service Quality
.805**
.783**
.845**
.789**
140
191
197
209
**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of income
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of income,
except the tangibility dimension of service quality for both the income groups of LIC
customers.
basis of income was accepted
basis of income
Income
Dimension
LIC
HDFC LIFE
LIC
HDFC LIFE
5 Lacs
5 Lacs
> 5 Lacs
> 5 Lacs
81
Tangibility
.028
-.308**
.018
-.298**
Reliability
.941**
.935**
.932**
.935**
Responsiveness
-.878**
-.850**
-.837**
-.811**
Assurance
.910**
.735**
.911**
.758**
Empathy
.358**
.800**
.393**
.744**
Service Quality
.811**
.782**
.845**
.780**
144
193
193
207
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of qualification
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of
qualification, except the tangibility dimension of service quality for both graduates and
below group and PG and higher group of LIC customers.
basis of qualification was accepted.
basis of qualification
Dimension
LIC
Graduate
Tangibility
HDFC LIFE
and Graduate
LIC
and PG
HDFC LIFE
and PG
below
below
Higher
Higher
.005
-.402**
.036
-.256**
82
and
Reliability
.936**
.933**
.937**
.936**
Responsiveness
-.850**
-.840**
-.853**
-.830**
Assurance
.916**
.781**
.904**
.726**
Empathy
.361**
.819**
.935**
.758**
Service Quality
.834**
.783**
.852**
.779**
177
166
160
234
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of profession
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of different
professions, except the tangibility dimension of service quality for all LIC customers,
Govt. Employees, private employees, own business and others.
Thus hypothesis H9.6: for significant relationship between Service Quality, its various
basis of profession was accepted.
basis of profession
Dimension
Tangibility
Reliability
Profession
LIC
HDFC LIC
HDFC
Govt.
LIFE
Govt.
Emp
.024
.954**
LIC
HDFC
LIC
HDFC
Private
LIFE
Private
Own
LIFE
Own
Others
LIFE
Others
Emp.
-.281*
Emp.
-.107
Emp
-.297**
Buss.
.111
Buss
-.373
-.118
-.449*
*
.935**
.950**
.927**
.887**
.928**
.915**
.995**
83
Responsivenes
-.876*
-.841*
-.872**
-.817**
-.776*
-.750** -.804**
-.914**
s
Assurance
Empathy
Service Quality
N
*
.937**
.464**
.887**
162
*
.762**
.786**
.796**
250
.896**
.269**
.753**
57
.747**
.760**
.773
96
*
.870**
.324**
.822**
71
.758**
.778**
.768**
28
.634**
.788**
.748**
26
.905**
.185**
.729**
47
satisfaction of the LIC and HDFC Life customers on the basis of marital status
were highly correlated for both LIC and HDFC LIFE customers on the basis of marital
status, except the tangibility dimension of service quality for both married and unmarried
customers of LIC.
basis of marital status was accepted.

basis of marital status
Marital Status
Dimension
LIC
HDFC LIFE
LIC
Married
Married
Unmarried Unmarried
Tangibility
.019
-.279**
.038
-.376**
Reliability
.941**
.936**
.929**
.935**
Responsiveness
-.859**
-.827**
-.837**
-.852**
84
HDFC LIFE
Assurance
.918**
.743**
.898**
.765**
Empathy
.374**
.751**
.394**
.857**
Service Quality
.825**
.782**
.842**
.789**
219
312
118
88
85

Chapter 5 Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5 Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5

Data Analysis and Results

Graduate and below

Post Graduate and Higher

Table 5.1.5 Profession Profile- LIC Customers

Table 5.1.7-Gender profile- HDFC Life Customers

Graduate and below

INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS- LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

*0.05 level of significance

Annual Household Income

Post Graduate and Above

Graduate and Below

Post Graduate and Above

Graduate and Below

Graduate and Below

Post Graduate and Above

Graduate and Below

Post Graduate and Above

*0.05 level of significance

Hence, hypotheses H1.5 pertaining to significant difference in the perceived Service

*0.05 level of significance

5.3 DIFFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF LIC CUSTOMERS FOR

5.3.3 Difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of

5.3.4 Difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of

5.3.6 Difference in the customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of

Relationship between service quality, its dimensions and customer

satisfaction for the entire group of LIC customers

Service Quality Perceived

5.4.2a Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various

dimensions and Customer satisfaction of LIC customers on the basis of gender.

Service Quality Perceived

5.4.2c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

Service Quality Perceived

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The age moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

customer satisfaction. Again

Table 5.4.3b Regression Models Characteristics between service quality and

5.4.3c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

Service Quality Perceived

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.4.3c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

Graduate and Below

Service Quality Perceived

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.4.5b Regression Models Characteristics between service quality and

5.4.5c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

Service Quality Perceived

Different profession groups moderated the correlation coefficients between customer

5.4.6c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

Table 5.4.7a Correlation coefficients between service Quality, its various

Service Quality Perceived

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Marital status moderated correlation coefficients between customer satisfaction, service

Table 5.4.7b Regression Models Characteristics between service quality and

5.4.7c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions

SECTION 5.5 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS- HDFC LIFE

*5% level of significance

5.6 DIFFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF HDFC Life CUSTOMERS

Own Business Others

5.7 REALATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY, ITS DIMENSIONS AND

Relationship between service quality, its dimensions and customer

satisfaction for the entire group of HDFC Life customers

5.7.1c Regression Coefficients between service Quality, its various dimensions