International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2020, pp. 76–88, Article ID: IJM_11_03_009
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=3
Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1471 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

THE IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; AN EMPIRICAL
STUDY
Joshy K T
Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies,
Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Dr.F.J. Peterkumar
Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies,
Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Sunil Vakayil
Director, RVS Institute of Management Studies and Research,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Customer satisfaction is viewed as an end rather than a means, as far as
organizational goals are concerned. This is because ensuring customer satisfaction will
automatically end up with achievement of organizational objectives. Many management
writers consider service quality as the most important factor determining customer
satisfaction. This research study attempts to find out the impact of the quality of service
on the satisfaction level of customers in the public sector General Insurance companies
in Cochin. The required data is collected from the customers of these companies in
Cochin. The study reveals that the employee service quality of public sector General
Insurance companies in Cochin has a significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction. The study recommends improvement in quality of service in organizations
to ensure higher level of satisfaction among customers.
Key words: Customer satisfaction, organizational goals, Public Sector General
Insurance, service quality.

Cite this Article: Joshy K T, Dr.F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil, The Impact of
Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study, International Journal of
Management (IJM), 11 (3), 2020, pp. 76–88.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 76 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of any organization will be to build up a happy customer base because it will ultimately
lead them to the attainment of organizational goal. One of most important factors that contribute
to the customer satisfaction is the quality of service of the employees. Service quality is a
perception from the customer’s side about the quality of service received by them. Parasuraman
et.al (1985) says that service quality is the difference between expected and actual service
received and observes that when the former improves, the latter also goes up. The impact of
employee’s service quality on customer satisfaction has been a topic of discussion among
organizational heads in the past many decades. Today the organizations give the highest priority
for service quality as they know that it is the ultimate method to increase their customer’s
satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Parasuraman et.al (1985) compared the customer’s expected and actual service using
SERVQUAL developed by them. As per their paper published in 1988, service quality
dimensions are Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy. Olu ojo et.al
(2010) in their study found that service quality showed a significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction. Mohsin Zafar et.al (2011) found that service quality had a very significant effect
on customer satisfaction. Van Dinh et.al (2012) studied the effect of service quality on the
satisfaction level of customers and found that service quality is positively related to customer
satisfaction. Jasmina Lumanaj et.al (2013) in their study observed that service quality positively
affects competitive edge and relations with the clients. Rahhal et.al (2015) in their study of
relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customer retention found that
the service quality dimensions other than empathy has significant influence on customer
satisfaction whereas empathy has insignificant relation. Minh et.al (2015) found that
dimensions other than tangibility had significant impact on the satisfaction level of customers.
Al-Azzam et.al (2015) observed that better is the service quality, higher is the customer
satisfaction. Kumar et.al (2019) made a study on the impact of service quality on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty. The study has found that service quality has a positive impact
on customer satisfaction. Sukhvinder Singh Paposa et.al (2019) studied the impact of service
quality on customer satisfaction in Life Insurance Industry in India. The study revealed that all
the service quality factors has significant positive influence on customer’s satisfaction.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To examine the impact of service quality factors and customer satisfaction on
demographic factors of customers.
• To analyze the relationship between the service quality and customer satisfaction.
• To study the impact of service quality factors on customer satisfaction.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The target population of this study is the customers of the four public sector General Insurance
companies in Cochin City in Kerala. A detailed questionnaire for collecting data from
customers is prepared. The service quality questions are based on SERVQUAL developed by
Parasuraman et.al (1988). The factors on which these questions are based upon are tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Part 1 of the questionnaire has 8
demographic questions and Part 2 has 25 service quality questions and 10 customer satisfactions
questions. The responses to the part 2 questions are based on 5-point Likert scale.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 77 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

5. DATA COLLECTION
Convenience sampling is used to select samples. The questionnaire was prepared in Google
Form were sent through e-mails/WhatsApp to 300 customers of Public sector General Insurance
customers in the city of Cochin. The Google Form survey was made open from 1st of August
to 31st October 2019. Fully completed forms received from customers were 81.

6. ANALYSIS OF DATA
6.1. RELIABILITY
Cronbach Alpha value for Tangibility (TAN), Reliability (REL), Responsiveness (RES),
Assurance (ASS), Empathy (EMP), Satisfaction (SAT) are 0.818, 0.868, 0.865, 0.796, 0.848
and 0.913. Since the values are above 0.7, it is inferred that the constructs and questionnaire are
reliable.

6.2. SOCIO- ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CUSTOMERS

TABLE 1- SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CUSTOMERS
PROFILE VARIABLE GROUPS FREQUENCY %
New India 22 27.2
United India 20 24.7
Company
National 18 22.2
Oriental 21 25.9
Fire 5 6.2
Motor 47 58.0
Policy Type Health 22 27.2
Personal Accident 6 7.4
Shop 1 1.2
Self-employed 32 39.5
Occupation Salaried 37 45.7
Retired 12 14.8
Up to 30 years 16 19.8
31 to 40 years 20 24.7
Age 41 to 50 years 20 24.7
51 to 60 years 12 14.8
Above 60 13 16.0
Male 58 71.6
Gender
Female 23 28.4
Unmarried 10 12.3
Marital Status
Married 71 87.7
Below 10 3 3.7
Undergraduate 14 17.3
Qualification
Graduate 47 58.0
Postgraduate and above 17 21.0
One year 9 11.1
2 to 3 years 17 21.0
Experience with company 4 to 6 years 29 35.8
7 to 10 years 11 13.6
Above 10 15 18.5
Source: Primary data

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 78 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

The above percentage analysis shows that 27.2% of respondents are from New India
Insurance which is the highest followed by Oriental Insurance with 25.9%, United India
Insurance with 24.7% and National Insurance with 22.2%. Motor policy customers are the
highest with 58% followed by health policy with 27.2%, Pers Accident insurance with 7.4%,
Fire insurance with 6.2% and Shop insurance with 1.2%. Regarding occupation of customers
salaried class is the highest with 45.7% followed by self-employed with 39.5% and retired
people with 14.8%. Highest percentage of respondents are from the age group of 31-40 and 41-
50 with 24.7% each followed by up to 30 with 19.8%, above 60 with 16% and 51-60 with
14.8%. Highest number of respondents are male with 71.6% and females are 28.4%. 87% are
married and 12.3 are unmarried. Regarding qualification of the respondents, the highest
percentage is graduates with 58% followed by Postgraduates with 21%, undergraduates 17.3%
and below 10 with 3.7%. Regarding insurance experience 35% are having 4-6 years’ experience
followed by 2-3 with 21%, above 10 with 18.5%, 7-10 with 13.6% and 1year 11.1%.

6.3. GENDER INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their gender.
H1 = There is significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their gender.
Since the respondents belong to only two groups, Z-test is used to find out whether there
are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering their gender.

TABLE 2 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON GENDER

CONSTRUCTS GENDER MEAN ZO SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
Male 18.1034
TAN 0.559 0.578 Not Significant
Female 17.6957
Male 17.7586
REL 0.314 0.754 Not Significant
Female 18.0435
Male 16.7719
RES 0.571 0.569 Not Significant
Female 17.2609
Male 17.4828
ASS 0.616 0.540 Not Significant
Female 17.9565
Male 17.1724
EMP 0.871 0.386 Not Significant
Female 17.8696
Male 34.8276
SAT 0.465 0.643 Not Significant
Female 35.5217
Source: Primary data

6.3. INFLUENCE OF MARITAL STATUS ON THE CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their marital status.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 79 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality

dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their marital status.
Since the respondents belong to only two groups, Z-test is used to find out whether there is
any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions
considering their marital status.

TABLE 3 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS

CONSTRUCTS MARITAL STATUS MEAN ZO SIG. REMARK
TAN Unmarried 18.1000 0.128 0.899 Not Significant
Married 17.9718
REL Unmarried 17.4000 0.430 0.668 Not Significant
Married 17.9014
RES Unmarried 16.5556 0.328 0.742 Not Significant
Married 16.9577
ASS Unmarried 16.5000 1.218 0.227 Not Significant
Married 17.7746
EMP Unmarried 16.5000 0.906 0.368 Not Significant
Married 17.4930
SATS Unmarried 33.7000 0.741 0.461 Not Significant
Married 35.2113
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering their marital status.

6.4. INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENCE IN COMPANIES ON CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different companies.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different companies.
Since the respondents belong to four company groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find
out whether there is any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service
quality dimensions who are of different companies.

TABLE 4 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON INSURANCE COMPANY

INSURANCE
CONSTRUCTS MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
COMPANY
New India 19.2273
United India 17.0500
TAN 0.445 Not Significant
National 18.4444
2.806
Oriental 17.1905
New India 19.1364 0.124 Not Significant

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 80 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

INSURANCE
CONSTRUCTS MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
COMPANY
United India 16.7500 1.978
REL National 18.3333
Oriental 17.0952
New India 18.5909
United India 15.9500
2.860 0.428 Not Significant
National 16.8889
RES
Oriental 16.0500
New India 18.5909
ASS United India 16.4500
2.186 0.096 Not Significant
National 18.2778
Oriental 17.1429
New India 19.0909
United India 17.3500
3.515 0.452 Not Significant
National 16.3333
EMP
Oriental 16.4762
New India 37.8636
United India 33.2000 3.218
0.067 Not Significant
SAT National 35.7222
Oriental 33.1905
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who are of different companies.

6.5. INFLUENCE OF CCUPATION ON CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different occupation.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different occupation.
Since the respondents belong to three groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions who are of different occupation.

TABLE 5 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON OCCUPATION

CONSTRUCTS OCCUPATION MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
Self employed 17.9375
Salaried 18.1081 0.073 0.930 Not Significant
TAN
Retired 17.7500
Self employed 17.5000
Not Significant
REL Salaried 18.3514 0.696 0.502

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 81 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

CONSTRUCTS OCCUPATION MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK

Retired 17.1667
Self employed 16.6563
Salaried 17.5405 1.588 0.211 Not Significant
RES
Retired 15.5455
Self employed 17.3750
Salaried 18.1351 1.177 0.314 Not Significant
ASS
Retired 16.6667
Self employed 17.2188
Salaried 17.7027 0.443 0.644 Not Significant
EMP
Retired 16.7500
Self employed 34.9063 1.320
Salaried 35.8919 0.273
Not Significant
SATS
Retired 32.6667
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who are of different occupation.

6.6. INFLUENCE OF AGE OF CUSTOMERS ON CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in age groups.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in age groups.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there is any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in age groups.

TABLE 6- CLASSIFICATION BASED ON AGE

CONSTRUCTS AGE MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
Up to 30 years 18.3750
31 to 40 years 17.9500
TAN
41 to 50 years 17.4500 0.457 0.767 Not Significant
51 to 60 years 18.7500
Above 60 17.6923
Up to 30 years 17.3125

REL 31 to 40 years 18.8000

0.822 0.515 Not Significant
41 to 50 years 17.3000
51 to 60 years 18.6667

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 82 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

Above 60 17.0769
Up to 30 years 16.8000

RES 31 to 40 years 17.8000

41 to 50 years 17.4000 1.388 0.246 Not Significant
51 to 60 years 16.7500
Above 60 15.0769
Up to 30 years 16.8750

ASS 31 to 40 years 18.3500

0.891
41 to 50 years 17.7500 0.473 Not Significant
51 to 60 years 18.1667
Above 60 16.6923
Up to 30 years 17.1875

EMP 31 to 40 years 18.2500

41 to 50 years 17.4500 0.630 0.642 Not Significant
51 to 60 years 16.8333
Above 60 16.6154
Up to 30 years 34.1875

SAT 31 to 40 years 36.6000

41 to 50 years 35.0000 0.999 0.413 Not Significant
51 to 60 years 36.0833
Above 60 32.6923
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering the difference in their age
groups.

6.7. INFLUENCE OF QUALIFICATION ON CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in the qualification.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in qualification of customers.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in qualification of customers.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 83 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

TABLE 7 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON QUALIFICATION

CONSTRUCTS QUALIFICATION MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
Below10 17.6667
Undergraduate 18.3571
TAN Not Significant
Graduate 17.8298 0.148 0.930
Postgraduate and above 18.1765
Below10 17.0000
Undergraduate 18.0714
Graduate 17.8298 0.069 0.976 Not Significant
REL
Postgraduate and above 17.8235
Below 10 19.0000
Undergraduate 17.0000
Graduate 16.3830 1.254 0.296 Not Significant
RES
Postgraduate and above 17.9412
Below 10 20.3333
Under
17.5714
graduate 0.823 0.485
Not Significant
ASS Graduate 17.4255
Postgraduate and above 17.7059
Below 10 17.0000
Undergraduate 17.5000
Graduate 17.2340 0.105 0.957
EMP Not Significant
Postgraduate and above 17.7059
Below 10 38.0000
Undergraduate 35.0714
Graduate 34.6809 0.311 0.818
SAT Not Significant
Postgraduate and above 35.4118
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the customer perceptions
on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and
Satisfaction considering the difference in qualification of customers.

6.8. INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE ON CONSTRUCTS

H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions
Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering the
difference in experience of the customers.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in experience of the customers.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in experience of customers.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 84 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

TABLE 8 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPERIENCE

CONSTRUCTS EXPERIENCE MEAN F SIGNIFICANCE REMARK
One year 18.1111
2 to 3 years 18.4118
TAN 0.322 0.863
4 to 6 years 17.5517 Not Significant
7 to 10 years 17.8182
Above 10 18.4000
One year 16.8889
2 to 3 years 18.0588
0.508 0.730
4 to 6 years 17.3793
REL
7 to 10 years 18.4545 Not Significant
Above 10 18.6000
One year 15.8889
2 to 3 years 17.9375
0.863 0.490
RES 4 to 6 years 16.3448
7 to 10 years 16.9091 Not Significant
Above 10 17.5333
One year 17.0000
2 to 3 years 17.9412
0.582 0.676
ASS 4 to 6 years 17.1034 Not Significant
7 to 10 years 17.9091
Above 10 18.4000
One year 16.3333
2 to 3 years 16.8235
0.593
EMP 4 to 6 years 17.5862
0.668
7 to 10 years 18.2727 Not Significant
Above 10 17.5333
One year 33.6667
2 to 3 years 35.9412
0.472
4 to 6 years 34.1724
SAT 0.756
7 to 10 years 35.6364 Not Significant
Above 10 36.0000
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be noted that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05. Therefore,
it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service
quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and
Satisfaction considering the difference in qualification of customers.

6.9. INTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIABLES

Correlation analysis is done between the variables Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction to find the inter relationship between them. The following
table shows the correlation between all the constructs under study.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 85 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

TABLE 9 - INTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIABLES

TAN REL RES ASS EMP SAT

Pearson Correlation 1 .649(**) .589(**) .679(**) .606(**) .797(**)
TAN Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 81 81 81 81 81 81
Pearson Correlation 1 .705(**) .762(**) .661(**) .834(**)
REL Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 81 81 81 81
Pearson Correlation 1 .803(**) .643(**) .878(**)
RES Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 81 80 80
Pearson Correlation 1 .622(**) .918(**)
ASS Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
N 1 81 81
Pearson Correlation 1 .747(**)
EMP Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 81
Pearson Correlation 1
SAT Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Source: Primary data
• The following observations are made from the correlation table, values inside the
brackets represent correlation co-efficient.
• Tangible is significantly and positively correlated with Reliability (0.649),
Responsiveness (0.589), Assurance (0.679), Empathy (0.606) and Satisfaction
(0.797).
• Reliability is significantly and positively correlated with Responsiveness (0.705),
Assurance (0.762), Empathy (0.661) and Satisfaction (0.834).
• Responsiveness is significantly and positively correlated with Assurance (0.803),
Empathy (0.643) and Satisfaction (0.878).
• Assurance is significantly and positively correlated with Empathy (0.622) and
Satisfaction (0.918).
• Empathy is significantly and positively correlated with Satisfaction (0.747).

6.10. MULTIPLE REGRESSION

The H0: Employee service quality has no significant positive impact on customer satisfaction
of public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.
H1: Employee service quality has significant positive impact on customer satisfaction of
public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 86 editor@iaeme.com
 Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

TABLE 10 - COEFFICIENTS
UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED
MODEL COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS T SIG.
B STD. ERROR BETA
CON -1.574 0.963 -1.635 0.106
TAN 0.464 0.070 0.229 6.604 0.000
REL 0.225 0.066 0.137 3.404 0.001
1
RES 0.495 0.074 0.286 6.696 0.000
ASS 0.703 0.091 0.360 7.693 0.000
EMP 0.202 0.064 0.110 3.164 0.002
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
Source: Primary data
Substituting the values, Customer satisfaction = (-)1.574(Constant) +0.464 (Tangibility)
+0.225(Reliability) +0.495(Responsiveness) +0.703(Assurance) +0.202(Empathy).
The inference drawn is customer satisfaction increases by one unit when Tangibility
increase by 0.464 units, Reliability increase by 0.225, Responsiveness increases by 0.495,
Assurance increase by 0.703 and Empathy increase 0.202. Since the significance value is less
than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. Hence it is
concluded that Employee service quality has significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction of public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.

7. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

It is observed that the five dimensions of service quality under study (Tangibility, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) have a positive correlation with customer
satisfaction. The regression analysis shows that all the dimensions of service quality,
significantly and positively impacts customer satisfaction. I.e. when there is an increase in the
service quality, the customer satisfaction significantly increases in the same direction. From the
result of the analysis, it can be inferred that service quality of Public Sector General Insurance
companies in Cochin City is positively correlated with the customer satisfaction of these
companies. Similarly, service quality significantly impacts the customer satisfaction of the
companies.

8. CONCLUSION
The study reveals the following:
• Service quality factors have a positive relation with Customer satisfaction
• Employee’s service quality significantly and positively impacts customer
satisfaction which means that when the service quality of employees improves the
level of satisfaction of customers correspondingly improves.
Based on the findings, it is concluded that by bringing improvement in the service quality
of the employees, the organizations can enhance the level of customer satisfaction among their
customers. Hence it is recommended that the organizations should strive hard for bringing
improvements in the quality of service of their employees in order to keep their customers
happy which will in turn help them to achieve their organizational goals.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 87 editor@iaeme.com
 The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

REFERENCE
[1] Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry. A. Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing. 49(3), 1985, pp. 41-50.
[2] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, LL, “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service quality”. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1) 1988, pp. 5-
6.
[3] Ojo, O. The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the
Telecommunication Industry: Evidence from Nigeria. Brand Research in Accounting,
Negotiation and Distribution, 1(1), 2010, pp.88–100.
[4] Mohsin Zafar. Impact of online service quality on customer satisfaction in banking sector of
Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 2011, pp. 11786-11793.
[5] Van Dinh and Lee Pickler. Examining Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Retail
Banking Sector in Vietnam. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 11(4), 2012, pp.199-214.
[6] Jasmina Lumanaj, Aulent Guri, Armend Aliu, Otjela Lubonja, “Quality of Service in the
Banking Sector”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 4 (9), October 2013. Pp.418-424
[7] Rahhal, W. The Effects of Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical
Investigation in Syrian Mobile Telecommunication Services. International Journal of Business
and Management Invention, 4(5), 2015, 2319–8028.
[8] Minh, N.H., Thu Ha, N., Chi Anh, P., Matsui, Y, Service quality and customer satisfaction: A
case study of hotel industry in Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 11(10), 2015, pp.73–85.
[9] Al-Azzam, A. F. M. The Impact of Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction: A
Field Study of Arab Bank in Irbid City, Jordan. European Journal of Business and Management
Online), 7(15), 2015, pp. 2222–2839.
[10] Kumar, K., Rai, S., & Dugar, A. Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction and
Loyalty in the Sector of Telecom Service Provider in Delhi-NCR. International Journal of
Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(8), 2019, pp. 2841–2846.
[11] Paposa, S.S., Ukinkar, V. G., & Paposa, K. K. Service quality and customer satisfaction:
Variation in customer perception across demographic profiles in life insurance industry.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(10), 2019,
pp.3767–3775.
[12] P.S. Prema Kumar and Dr. G. Rambabu, Fuzzy Service Quality Evaluation of Health Care
Sectors, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 10(4),
2019, pp. 135-139
[13] Parul Gupta and R.K. Srivastava, Analysis of Customer Satisfaction in Hotel Service Quality
Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp), International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 2 Issue 1, May – October (2011), pp. 59-68
[14] A. Ramaraju, Impact Of Technology on Productivity and Service Quality among Indian Airline
Services, International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),
Volume 5, Issue 1, January – February (2014), pp. 42-51
[15] R. Ramachandran and Dr. S. Sekar, a Study on Technology and Banking Service Quality in
Tiruchirappalli, International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management
(IJMHRM), Volume 5, Issue 6, November – December (2014), pp. 07-17
[16] Vibha, Abhay Shetty, B. Giridhar Kamath and Gopala Krishna. B, A System Dynamics Model
For Forecasting Service Quality, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology, 9(8), 2018, pp. 326–338.
[17] Nur Hayati and Desi Novitasari, an Analysis of Tourism Service Quality toward Customer
Satisfaction (Study on Tourists in Indonesia Travel Destinations to Bali). International Journal
of Marketing and Human Resource Management, 8(2), 2017, pp. 09–20.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 88 editor@iaeme.com