CHAPTER -— VI ___ aifCHAPTER - VI DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - II ‘Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on HIS Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on HIS. TABLE 6.1 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND MODE OF AWARENESS ON HIS chi | Degrees Factor care of p-value Remark pa Freedom Gender 2.726 3 436 Not significant Age 27.919 a 001 Significant Marital 21.913 3 .000 | Significant status EE Qualification | 10.882 ) "284 _| Not significant Profession 13.124 12 .360 | Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square values are not very high and the p-values are not very low (<.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between the demographic variables gender / qualification and mode of awareness. However, the high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.01) for the factors age, marital status and profession verify the respective null hypotheses are rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables age, marital status, profession and mode of awareness on HIS at 1 per cent level of significance. 1656.2.3 Test for Association between demographic factors and awareness on various Legislative Provisions The association between awareness level on various Legislative Provisions and demographic profiles of the respondents were tested through chi-square analysis and the results are appended below: 6.2.3.1 Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on Insurance Act, 1938 Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on The Companies Act, 1956. TABLE 6.2 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 chi. | Degtees Mactor |e of | p-value) Remark | is Freedom | Not Gender 2198 |2 333 | enificant Age 20.658 |6 002 | Significant Marital | —_ mete [5.783 |2 055 _| Significant Qualification | 65.704 __|6 000__| Significant Profession | 62.5918 .000__| Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square value is not very high and the p-value is not very low (>.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between the gender and awareness on The Companies Act, 1956. However, the high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.05) for the factors age, qualification and profession verify that the respective null hypothesis can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on The Companies Act, 1956 at-5 per cent level of significance. Also it can be seen from the above table the association between marital status and awareness on The Companies Act, 1956 is marginally significant, as the p-value is 0.055 which is little over the significance value of 0.05. 1666.2.3.2 Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on Insurance Act, 1938 Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on Insurance Act, 1938. TABLE 6.3 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND INSURANCE ACT, 1938 ChE Degrees Factor pt of | p-value| Remark Freedom Gender 4.245, 2 -120 Not significant [Age 20.298 _|6 .002 | Significant Marital Peal status 4.970 2 -083 Not significant Qualification [73.780 [6 :000___| Significant Profession [61.412 __|8 .000 _| Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square value are not very high and the p-values are not very low (>.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between the gender, marital status and awareness on Insurance Act, 1938. However, the high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.01) for the factors age, qualification and profession verify that the respective null hypothesis can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on Insurance Act, 1938 at 1 per cent level of significance. 1676.2.3.3 Test for Association between demographic factors and awareness on The IRDA Act, 1999 Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on The IRDA Act, 1999. TABLE 6.4 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND THE IRDA ACT, 1999 chi. | Degtees Factor paaaty of | p-value Remark a Freedom Gender 6.513 2 | .039 | Significant Age 18.559 6 .005 _| Significant Marital = nae 4.937 2g Not significant Qualification |__73.780 6 gnificant Profession 60.627 8 Significant | Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square value are not very high and the p-values are not very low (>.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between marital status and awareness on The IRDA Act, 1999, However, the high values of chi- square and the low values of p (<.05) for the factors gender, age, qualification and profession verify that the respective null hypotheses can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, qualification and profession and awareness on The IRDA Act, 1999 at 5 per cent level‘of significance. 168Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on IRDA - Functions. TABLE 6.5 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND IRDA - .4 Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on IRDA - Regulations and Functions Regulations and REGULATIONS AND FUNCTIONS chi | Deetees Factor | Care of | p-value) Remark Freedom Gender 6.907 2 032 _| Significant ‘Age 15.916 6 014 _| Significant Marital 3.320 2 199 | Not status significant | Qualification | 73.148 6 000 _| Significant Profession | 60.650 8 000 _| Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square value are not very high and the p-values are not very low (>.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between marital status and awareness on IRDA - Regulations and Functions. high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.05) for the factors gender, age, qualification and profession verify that the respective null hypotheses can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, qualification and profession and awareness on IRDA - Regulations and Functions at 5 per cent level of significance. 169 However, the6.2.3.5 Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on Income Tax Act, 1961 Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on Income Tax Act, 1961. TABLE 6.6 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 chi | Degrees Factor square of |p-value| Remark Freedom Gender 5.343 2 .069 Not significant ‘Age 21.901 6 .001 _| Significant ae 4.875 2 .102 | Not significant Qualification | 69.526 _ 6 000 _| Significant Profession 60.846 8 -000 Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the chi-square value are not very high and the p-values are not very low (>.05) to reject the null hypotheses of no association between gender, marital status and awareness on Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.05) for the factors age, qualification and profession verify that the respective null hypotheses can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on Income Tax Act, 1961 at 5 per cent level of significance. 1706.2.3.6 Test for association between various demographic factors and mode of awareness on Actuaries Act, 2006 Ho: There is no association between various demographic factors and awareness on Actuaries Act, 2006. TABLE 6.7 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND ACTUARIES ACT, 2006 | cn. | Deerees Factor 7 of |p-value| Remark quare | Freedom Not Gender 8.331 2 016 | significant ‘Age 16.675 6 “011 _| Significant Marital | Not 6.224 2 045. | status | significant Qualification | 63.588 6 .000 | Significant Profession 60.969 8 -000 Significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the high values of chi-square and the low values of p (<.05) for all the factors verify that the respective null hypotheses can be rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, marital status, qualification and profession and awareness on Actuaries Act, 2006 at 5 per cent level of significance 1716.2.4 Association between Risk coverage vs. demographic variables ‘The cross-tabulation of demographic variables and opinion on awareness on risk coverage on various investments is displayed in the following table 6.8. TABLE 6.8 CROSS TABULATION OF VIEWS ON RISK COVERAGE VS. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES HIS cover risk Demographic variable No | Yes | Total Count | Count | Count Gender Male 224 | 134 | 358 Female iss | 42 | 242 ‘Age group Upto 25 82 70 | 152 26-35 112 | 50 | 162 36-45, 144 | 90 | 234 46-60 44 8 52 Marital status | Married 278 | 148 | 426 ___| Unmarried 104 | 70 | 174 Qualification | Upto SSLC 50 20 70 HSc, 50 32 82 Diploma/UG 134 | 96 | 230 ere Post Graduate 148 | 70 | 218 Profession Govt.employee 66 16 82 Semi- Govt.employee 58 ccalee ean Self employed 134 | 104 | 238 Private employee | 116 | 60 | 176 Others 28 16 44 Annual Income | Upto 2 Lakh 188 126 | 314 2-3 Lakh 1s6 | 78 | 234 Above 3 Lakh | 38 14 52 Total 382 [218 | 600 Source: Primary data 172Ho: There is no association between demographic variables and opinion on risk coverage It can be seen from the above table that 108 respondents (36per cent) feel that their investments are subject to risk coverage; 67 numbers of male respondents and 41 numbers of female respondents feel that their investments are subject to risk coverage; similarly the number of respondents in each category of demographic variables is listed in the above table. However, to see if there is any association between the demographic variables and the views on risk coverage, separate chi-square tests were carried out and the results are appended below. 173TABLE 6.9 CHI-SQUARE TESTS : DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES VS. OPINION ON RISK COVERAGE Variable Chi- dé | Sig. | Remark Not Gender 332} 1 | .565 significant Not Marital Status 6f0| 2 | 48& |e, significant Not Qualification 3.595] 3 | .309| significant Not Profession 8.094] 4 | .088 J significant Not Annual Income 3.078; 2 | 215] | significant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the large chi-square value (10.801) with a small p-value (< .05) for the demographic variable Age signifies that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that there is a significant association between Age of the respondent and their opinion on risk coverage. However, the small value of chi-square and very large of p (>.05) for all the other demographic variables verify that their respective null hypotheses of no association between these variables and view on risk coverage are not rejected. 1746.2.5 Association between Habit of Tracking and demographic variables The following table n0.6.26 gives the habit of tracking the investment portfolios based on the different variables of demography. It can be seen from the table that 256 respondents out of 300 respondents have the habit of tracking their investment portfolios. TABLE 6.10 CROSS TABULATION OF HABIT OF TRACKING VS. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ‘Track your policy Demographic variable No | Yes | Total Count | Count | Count Gender Male 54 | 304 | 358 Female 34 | 208 | 242 Age group [Upto 25 22 | 130 | 152 26-35 24 | 138 | 162 36-45 36 | 200 | 236 46-60 6 44 50 7 61 and above ° o 0 Marital Married 62 | 366 | 428 status Unmarried 26 | 146 | 172 Qualification |Upto SSLC 8 64 72 HSc. 8 74 82 Diploma/UG 32 | 198 | 230 Post Graduate 40_| 176 | 216 Profession | Govt.employee 14 68 82 Semi-Govt.employee | 12 48 60 Self employed 28 | 212 | 240 Private employee 26 | 150 | 176 Others 8 34 42 Annual Upto 2 Lakh 40 | 274 | 314 Income 2-3 Lakh 32 | 204 | 236 | Above 3 Lakh 16 34 50 | Total 88 512 | 600_ Source: Primary data 175Ho: There is no association between each of the demographic variables and the tracking habit of respondents It can be seen from the above table that 152 male respondents and 104 female respondents have the habit of tracking; similarly the number of respondents in each demographic variables is listed in the above table. However, to see whether is any association between each of the demographic variable and the habit of tracking investment portfolio, separate chi-square tests were carried out and the results are appended in the following table. 176TABLE 6.11 CHI-SQUARE TESTS: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES VS, TRACKING HABIT Variable ae at | Sig. | Remark Gender .062| 1| 804 eee Age (in years) 1178 3] .981 cere Marital Status .019 1| .880 es Qualification 2.486| 3| .478 aca Profession 2.057) 4] .725 aoalidand Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the small value of chi-square and large value of p (>.05) in respect of the demographic variables Gender, Age, Marital status, Qualification and Profession verify that the respective null hypotheses of no association between these variables and Tracking Habit of respondents are not rejected; however, the very low value of p(<.05) in respect of the demographic variable Annual Income signify that the null hypothesis is rejected at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence it may be concluded that there is a significant association between the tracking habit of respondents and the demographic variable Age of the respondents. 77TABLE 6.12 FREQUENCY OF TRACKING BY INVESTORS Frequency of tracking Demographic variable pad an ooercee ieee Count Gender | Male 12 Female 4 94 16 48 36 Age | Upto 25 2 118 8 20 14 group | 26-35 2 82 2 34 30 36-45 4 126 | 10 46 | 40 46-60 2 44 0 14 2 61andabove}] 0 0 0 0 0 Marital | Married 8 228 | 24 94 | 70 status | Unmarried 2 106 | 10 32 26 Qualifi | Upto SSLC 2 32 14 30 6 cation | HSc. 4 42 4 24 22 Diploma/UG | 6 120 8 32 40 Post aia 8 142 | 10 26 28 Profess | Govt.employed 0 46 8 10 10 ion Semi- arene 2 30 10 8 18 Selfemployed] 8 142 6 48 26 aaa 0 102 8 42 28 employee Others 0 8 2 22 12 Annual | Upto 2 Lakh 8 194 | 16 44 46 Income | 2-3 Lakh 6 108 10 76 40 Above 3Lakh| 0 32 0 12 8 Total 14 Source: Primary data To see whether there is any association between each of the demographic variables and the frequency of tracking investment portfolio, separate chi-square tests were carried out and the results are appended in the following table 6.13. 178Ho: There is no association between each of the demographic variables and the frequency of tracking investment portfolio Table 6.13 : Chi-Square Tests ~ Frequency of Tracking vs. demographic variables Variable Chi-_| df | Sig. | Remark Gender 8.650 4] .070 a | Age (in years) 10.509| 12] 571) Sienitiat Marital Status 2.511 4| .643| Meine Qualification 12.975] 12] .371| ae Profession 24.825} 16] .073| en Annual Income 11.035] | .200) a ificant Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the small value of chi-square and large value of p (> .05) in respect of all the demographic variables verify that the respective null hypotheses of no association between these variables and Frequency of Tracking are not rejected; hence it is concluded that there is no association between frequency of tracking the HIS policies and demographic variables. 1796.3 Analysis of influencing factors before taking HIS 6.3.1 Gender vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS The average level of agreement on the influence of several variables among male and female respondents before taking HIS is tabulated below. It can be seen from the table that the factor ‘Health/Risk coverage’ is the most influencing factor (mean 3.85 and males and 3.95 for females) before taking HIS, followed by the factor ‘Premium charges’ (mean 3.81 and males and 3.93 for females). The factor ‘day care benefits’ was least considered by the respondents before taking HIS. However, to assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among gender, t-test was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. It can be seen from the above table that low +” values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of various factors among male and female respondents. 180Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among male and female respondents before taking HIS. TABLE 6.14 GENDER VS. OPINION ON INFLUENCING FACTORS BEFORE TAKING HIS Influencing a Meat pond a ar | Sig-(2- factors Male | Female | Male | Female | 2000 tailed) Paycare 179 | 121 | 3.48 | 3.61 | -.131 | -1.203 | 298| .230 benefits Pre-post + hospital 179 | 121 | 3.81 | 3.82 | ~008 | -.082 |298| .935 expenses Health/Risk | 479 | 121 [Se Tee -101 | -.974 | 298] .331 coverage Premium ns 179] 121 | 3.81 | 3.93 | -.116 | -1.170 }298| .243 Settlement | i179] 121 | 3.76 | 3.90 | -.141 | -1.458 |298] .146 procedures | Brand Value | 179 | 121 | 3.73 | 3.89 | -.166 | -1.695 | 298] .091 Policyholders helpline 179| 121 | 3.70 | 3.77 | -070 | -.713 |298) .477 services Hospital 179} 121 | 3.75 | 3.84 | -.o89 | -.942 |298| .347 reference : Track record Es srecttloment | 179 | 121 | 3.73 | 3.74 | -012 | -120 | 298] .905 Discount ee 179| 121 | 3.79] 3.75 | .036 | .366 | 298| 715 Unclaimed aie 179 | 121 | 366] 3,70 | -.038 | -.367 |208| .714 Convenience toacquirea | 179| 121 | 3.57 | 3.62 | -.o50 | -.523 | 298] .601 policy Source: Primary data > 1816.3.2 Age vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS ‘The average level of agreement of respondents in different age groups on the influence of several variables before taking HIS is tabulated below. It can be seen from the table that the factor ‘Health/Risk coverage’ is the most influencing factor (mean 3.89) before taking HIS, followed by the factor ‘Premium charges’ (mean 3.86). The factor ‘day care benefits’ (mean 3.53) was least considered by the respondents before taking HIS. However, to assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among different age groups, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. HK There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents in different age groups before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors other than Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, and Track record of settlement verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the sufficiently large values of F and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, and Track record of settlement can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, and Track record of settlement among different age group of respondents. The respondents in the age group 26-35 years were mostly influenced by the factors Pre-post hospital expenses (3.95), Health/Risk coverage (4.11), and Track record of settlement (3.88), whereas the respondents in the age group 35-40 years were mostly influenced by the factors Brand Value (3.91) and Policyholders helpline services (3.84). 182TABLE 6.15 AGE VS. OPINION ON INFLUENCING FACTORS BEFORE TAKING HIS ‘Age Influencing factors Upto | 96.35) 36-45| 46-60 | rota * | Sis- Day care benefits | 3.29 | 3.58 | 3.64 | 3.64 | 3.53 | 2.449| .064 Premium charges | 3.71 | 3.95 | 3.89 | 3.84 | 3.86 | 1.172| .321 Settlement procedures 3.63 | 3.95 | 3.86 | 3.76 | 3.82 | 2.146] .095 Hospital reference Discount coupons | 3.62 | 3.78 | 3.85 | 3.88 | 3.77 | 1.348] .259 Unclaimed bonus | 3.54 | 3.79 | 3.68 | 3.76 | 3.68 | 1.161] .325 Convenience to acquire a policy 3.41 | 3.68 | 3.64 | 3.64 | 3.59 | 1.773| .152 Source: Primary data * Significant at 5% level of significance.6.3.3 Marital status vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS The average level of agreement on the influence of several variables among married and unmarried respondents before taking HIS is tabulated below. To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among married and unmarried respondents, t-test was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among married and unmarried respondents before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ¢’ values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors except Pre-post hospital expenses and Health/Risk coverage verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of various factors among married and unmarried respondents. However, the sufficiently large values of t and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Pre-post hospital expenses and Health/Risk coverage can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre-post hospital expenses and Health/Risk coverage among married and unmarried respondents. 184TABLE 6.16 MARITAL STATUS VS. OPINION ON INFLUENCING FACTORS BEFORE TAKING HIS N Mean ; Mean 1 pibuencing | Marri | Unma| Marr | Unma Differ| t | df ay ed | rried| ied | rried| ence Day care 214 | 86 | 3.59 | 3.40] .193 | 1.640 | 298 | .102 benefits Pre-post hospital 214 | 86 | 3.90 | 3.59 | .309 | 2.898 | 298 | .o04 expenses Health/ Risk 214 | 86 270 | 2.409 | 298 | .017* coverage Boemigm 214 | 86 | 3.87 | 3.81 | .060 | 0.558 | 298 | .577 charges Settlement | 514 | 86 | 3.87 | 3.67 | .199 | 1.904 | 298 | .0s8 | procedures Brand Value| 214 | 86 | 3.85 | 3.66 | .183 | 1.719 | 298 | .087 Policyholder shelpline | 214 | 86 | 3.78] 3.59 | .187 | 1.759 | 298 | .o80 services Hospital teference 214 86 3.80 | 3.76 .048 | 0.468 | 298 .640 Track record of 214 | 86 | 3.79 | 3.60 | .185 | 1.718 | 298 | .087 settlement. Discount each 214 | 86 | 3.80| 3.71 | .090 | 0.850 298 | .396 Unclaimed ‘bors 214 86 3.71 | 3.60 .106 | 0.949 | 298 344 Convenience toacquirea | 214 | 86 | 3.64| 3.47 | .175 | 1.696 | 298 | .091 policy | Source: Primary data 1856.3.4Profession vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS The average level of agreement of respondents in different profession groups on the influence of several variables before taking HIS is tabulated below. To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among gender, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents in different professions before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors Premium charges, Settlement procedures, Hospital reference and Unclaimed bonus, verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. Hence it is conchided that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Day care benefits, Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, Track record of settlement, and Discount coupons among respondents in different professions. It is also visible from the above table that the Semi-Govt. employees are more influenced by the factors than the respondents in other professions. 186TABLE 6.17 PROFESSION VS. OPINION ON INFLUENCING FACTORS BEFORE TAKING HIS PROFESSION Semi- Govt. Self |Private Influencing Factors) |i Ser", empl lemploy|Others| Total) * | Si: oyee oyed| ee Premium charges 3.80 | 4.10 | 3.79 | 3.86 | 3.95 | 3.86 |0.917| .454 Hospital reference Unclaimed bonus 3.61 Convenience to acquire a policy 3.51 | 3.90 | 3.47] 3.70 | 3.52 | 3.59 |2.403| .050 Source: Primary data* Significant at 5% level of significance. 4.03 | 3.59] 3.72 | 3.67 | 3.68 | 1.659| .159 1876.3.5 Income vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS ‘The average level of agreement of respondents in different income groups on the influence of several variables before taking HIS is tabulated below. To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among gender, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents in different income groups before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors other than Pre-post hospital expenses, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services and Track record of settlement verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the sufficiently large values of F and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services and Track record of settlement can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre- post hospital expenses, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services and Track record of settlement among respondents in different income groups. 188Table 6.18 Income vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS Mean Influencing Factors|Upto 2| 2-3 | Above |7.44;| F | Sig. Lakh | Lakh |3 Lakh Day care benefits 3.50 | 3.63 3.32 | 3.53 |1.393] .250 /Health/Risk 3.80 | 3.99 | 4.00 | 3.89 |1.869] .156 coverage Premium charges | 3.80 | 3.93 | 3.84 | 3.86 | .807| .447 Settlement 3.71 | 3.92 | 4.00 | 3.82|2.729] .067 procedures h sa te Hospital reference 3.73 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 3.79 [Discount coupons: 3.69 | 3.89 | 3.76 | 3.77 |2.025| .134 Unclaimed bonus 3.61 | 3.75 | 3.80 | 3.68 |1.058) .348 ‘Convenience to acquire a policy 3.53 | 3.64 | 3.72 | 3.59 |1.033) .357 Source: Primary data * Significant at 5% level of significance. 1896.3.6Intention vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS The average level of agreement of respondents with different intentions on the influence of several variables before taking HIS is tabulated below. To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among respondents of different intensions, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents in different income groups before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents with different intensions before taking HIS.Intention vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS Table 6.19 Influencing| self | Family) Tax | Medical|Acciden| factors |protectioy protectio} savinglexpense{ benefit] "44 Teta} F | Sis: Day care . 53 | 3. 3.48 |4.67)3.54| .950 | 449] penis 356 | 353 | 3.53 | 3.50 [Pre-post hhospital 383 | 385 | 3.73 | 3.64 | 3.78 |4.00|3.82| .260 |.935 expenses Health/Risk | 59, | 388 | 4.00] 3.79 | 3.88 |4.93|3.89) .250 |.939] coverage | eeeaatin 383 | 3.89 | 3.87) 3.79 | 3.79 |4.67|3.86| .689 |.632 charges Settlement | 333 | 3.85 | 3.80 | 3.87 | 3.79 |3.67|3.82| .314 |.904| procedures Brand Value} 3.78 | 3.82 | 4.00| 3.64 | 3.76 |3.33|3.79| .493 |.782| Policyholders helpline 3.70 | 367 | 4.00| 3.71 | 3.78 |4.33/3.72] .802 |.549| services | Hospital Pe 3.77 | 378 | 4.13 | 3.57 | 3.83 |3.67|3.79| .813 |.541 ‘Track record | Miectioment| 28! | 362 | 3.73 | 9.57 | 3.88 /8.00/3.79) 979 |496 Discount |) gas | 369 | a07| a7 | 386 la 67/3.78| :710 |.617 ene zt . ’ . .86 |3.67/3.78) :710 |.6 ‘Unclaimed | ae a7 | 3.63 | 3.60 | 3.43 | 3.81 |4.00/3.68| .690 |.632] (Convenience Ito acquirea | 3.62 | 3.56 | 3.60 | 3.50 | 3.62 |4.00/3.59| .269 |.930 \policy Other eet 3i7_| 3s | 3.00] 3.07 | 3.10 |3.67/3.15] .929 |.463| Source: Primary data 1916.4 Analysis on level of satisfaction on different factors of HIS 6.4.1 Gender vs. level of satisfaction on different factors The average level of satisfaction on different variables among male and female respondents is tabulated. However, to assess the level of satisfaction on these factors do differ among gender, t-test was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on different factors among male and female respondents. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘t’ values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the influence of various factors among male and female respondents. 192Table 6.20 Gender vs. level of satisfaction on different factors Mean r Sig. (2 [ean oo Factors | wate | Female | Difference| * | “ | tailed) Policy related | 44] 3.85 389 1.201 |268| .231 services Seifiement | aan] aRt 263 18 |268| 414 procedures Ye Issuance of ante abeked .086 .789 |268) .431 Grievance Redressal | 3.88) 4.35 | -462 | -1.156 |268| .249 System Switch over to | 359] 3.74 078 | -.710 | 268| .479 other schemes Portability 3.85 | 3.82 030 .312 | 268 756 Convenience of premium | 3.90) 3.84 061 | .594 |268| .553 payment | t Support of hospitalisation 4.01 4.04 -.031 -.095 | 268 924 Documentation procedure 3.69 | 3.68 005 .048 | 268 962 Source: Primary data 1936.4.2 Age vs. opinion on influencing factors before taking HIS ‘The average level of satisfaction of respondents in different age groups on different factors is tabulated below. To assess the evel of satisfaction on these factors do differ among different age group, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on different factors among respondents in different age groups. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors other than Issuance of policy docket, Portability, Convenience of premium payment and Documentation procedure verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the sufficiently large values of F and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Issuance of policy docket, Portability, Convenience of premium payment and Documentation procedure can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Issuance of policy docket, Portability, Convenience of premium payment and Documentation procedure among different age group of respondents. 194Table 6.21 Age vs. Mean satisfaction level on different factors Support of hospitalisation Source: data* 195 we Age group | aie tors , ae 26-35 b6-45 l46-60 | Total Policy xelated. | 3.56] 4.57| 4.13] 3.80| 4.09| 1.9141 198 services Setiteoncant 4.25] 3.97| 3.97) 3.65] 4.02| 0.335] .800 procedures Be ag | aie HpeuAS | 22081) 073355 Grievance Redressal 4.35| 4.01] 3.97| 3.80| 4.07/ 0.261| .8s3 | System Switch over to ; other schemes | 3:43) 3.79] 4.02| 3.75] 3.79] 6.714] .o00' Significant at 5% level of significance.6.4.3 Marital status vs. satisfaction level on different factors The average level of satisfaction on different variables among married and unmarried respondents is tabulated below. ‘To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among married and unmarried respondents, t-test was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on different factors among married and unmarried respondents. It can be seen from the above table that low *’ values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors Policy related services, Settlement procedures, Grievance Redressal System, and Support of hospitalization verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on various factors among married and unmarried respondents. However, the sufficiently large values of t and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Issuance of policy docket, Switch over to other schemes, Portability, Convenience of premium Payment and Documentation procedure can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of satisfaction on these factors among married and unmarried respondents. 196TABLE 6.22 co MARITAL STATUS VS. MEAN SATISFACTION LEVEL ON DIFFERENT FACTORS Marital status Mean Sig. (2 | wi ies Married | Unmarried | Difference| * | 4 | taitea) services’ 4.23 3.72 .503 1.430 268 .154 Settlement p fare 3.92 4.26 -.340 ~.974 | 268 | .331 Support of hospitalisation | > . “50 plabe Source: Primary data 1976.4.4 Profession vs. Mean satisfaction level on different factors The average level of agreement of respondents in different profession groups on the influence of several variables before taking HIS is tabulated below. To assess the level of agreement on these factors do differ among gender, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on different factors among respondents in different professions. It can be seen from the above table that low F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors other than Settlement procedures, Issuance of policy docket, Grievance Redressal System, and Support hospitalisation verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the sufficiently large values of F and low values of p (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Settlement procedures, Issuance of policy docket, Grievance Redressal System, and Support hospitalisation can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Settlement procedures, Issuance of policy docket, Grievance Redressal System, and Support hospitalisation among respondents in different professions. 198TABLE 6.23 PROFESSION VS. SATISFACTION LEVEL ON DIFFERENT Semi- Influencing Factors | Govt. Self F Sig. empl aa empl | * | Of otal oes gyal | ©™mPI | ers Policy related services| 3.60 | 4.20 | 3.89 | 4.56 |3.81| 4.09 |1.213] 0.306 ‘Switch over to other eee 3.71 | 4.00 | 3.73 | 3.85 |3.69/ 3.79 |0.695| 0.596 Portability 3.69 | 4.04 | 3.82 | 3.89 |3.75| 3.84 |0.921| 0.452 Convenience of premium payment | 2:77 | 3-96 | 3.91 | 3.87 /3.81/ 3.88 /0.275] 0.894 Documentation aie 3.63 | 3.80 | 3.73 | 3.67 |3.44| 3.69 |0.618| 0.650 Source: Primary data * Significant at 5% level of significance. 1996.4.5 Income vs. Mean satisfaction level on different factors ‘The average level of satisfaction on different factors of respondents with different income groups is tabulated below. To assess the level of satisfaction on these factors do differ among respondents of different income groups, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on different factors among respondents in different income groups. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for the factors other than Switchover to other schemes and Convenience of premium payment verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the sufficiently large values of F and low values of P (<.05) signify that null hypotheses in respect of factors Switchover to other schemes and Convenience of premium payment can be rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Switchover to other schemes and Convenience of premium payment among respondents in different income groups. 200TABLE 6.24 INCOME VS. MEAN SATISFACTION LEVEL ON DIFFERENT FACTORS Mean Influencing Factors | yptg 2) 2-3 | above F | sig. Lakh | Lakh |3 Lakh | 7°t#! Policy related services | 4.18 | 4.04 | 3.67 | 4.09 | 0.378] .685 Settlement procedures | 3.92 | 4.18 | 3.81 | 4.02 | 0.383] .682 Issuance of policy Motos 3.85 | 3.86 | 3.62 | 3.84 |0.702| .496 Grievance Redressal | 4.93 | 3.90 | 3.90 | 4.07 |o.341|.712 system Portability 3.80 | 3.95 | 3.52 | 3.84 |2.956] .o54 Support of ‘hospitalization 4.19 3.89 3.57 | 4.02 0.722] .487 Documentation ena 3.65 | 3.79 | 3.38 | 3.69 |2.478) .o86 Source: Primary data * Significant at 5% level of significance. 2014.6 Intention vs. Mean satisfaction level on different factors The average level of satisfaction on different factors of respondents with different intentions is tabulated below. To assess the level of satisfaction on these factors do differ among respondents of different intensions, ANOVA was carried out and the results are appended in the following table. Ho: There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents in different income groups before taking HIS. It can be seen from the above table that low ‘F’ values and high p-values (>.05) for all the factors except for the factor Insurance of policy docket verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the respective null hypotheses. However, the high value of F and low of p (<.05) for the factor Insurance of policy docket signifies that the null hypothesis in respect of this factor is rejected and it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the factor Insurance of policy docket among respondents with different intensions groups before taking HIS. 202TABLE 6.25 INTENTION VS. MEAN SATISFACTION LEVEL ON DIFFERENT FACTORS Influencing | Self | Family | Tax | Medical |Accident| factors |protection|protection|savings|expenses| benefits |F"4*/Total) F | Sig. basin Souiaeala 418 | 3.87 | 4.00 | 3.73 | 4.00] 4.09|0.275| 927 services Ravana: 4.06 419 | 380 | 3.85 | 3.65 |4.33/ 4.02 |0.344) 886 procedures Siete, | 208 3.68 | 380 | 3.85 | 3.67 | 4.00/3.79 1.758) 122 Portability 4.10 3.76 | 3.67 | 3.85 | 3.76 | 3.67| 3.84 |2.150| .060 Convenience of | premium 4.04 382 | 407 | 3.92 | 3.73 | 3.67/3.88 1.203) 308 payment | i { | H Support of | | nopetalieation| 00 4.29 | 380] 3.77 | 3.63 |3.00/ 4.08 o.sea).712 Documentation eadana 3.88 3.64 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.57 |3.67|3.69|1.188).316 Source: Primary data 2036.5 Ranking of factors of risk appetite The following table 4.42 displays the ranks given by the investors on various factors of risk coverage for the investments made by them. Table 6.26 Ranking of factors of Risk Appetite Risk Appetite factor = Rank Hospital expenses 3.10 1 | Accidents 3.31 2 Inflation 364 | 3 Natural disaster 3.92 4 oo 4.34 5 eee disability 442 | 6 aE 5.14 7 Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the respondents have chosen to give rank 1 (3.10) to the factor ‘hospital expenses’ followed by ‘accidents’ (3.31). The respondents have given least preference to the factor ‘personal disability’ (4.36) among several factors considered for study and the last preference to other reasons (5.14). 204FIGURE 6.1 RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE 5.14 434 Ae. 3.64 3.31 | Hospital Accidents Inflation Natural Terrorism Personal Others ‘expenses disaster disability Risk Appetite factor 2056.5.1 Test for ranking pattern among gender groups on Risk Appetite factors The mean ranking given by the male and female respondents on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. ‘The male respondents had given the factor hospital expenses the top priority, as well as female respondents. The male respondents have lesser preference than female respondents on the factors Natural disaster, Personal disability and Other factors. TABLE 6.27 GENDER-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE Gender Risk Appetite factor_| Male | Female | Total Inflation | 3.46[ 3.93] 3.64 Hospital expenses 2.97| _3.31| 3.10 Accidents 3.24[_3.43[__ 3.31 Natural disaster 3.99 3.81) 3.92 Terrorism 4.28) 4.43 4.34 Personal disability 4.59 4.14) 4.42 Others 5.25| 4.95] 5.14 Source: Primary data ‘The ranking pattern of male and female investors on various factors of risk covers were analysed to test whether their pattern of ranking is equal on various factors. The statistical tool Mann- Whitney U Test was used for the analysis with the following hypotheses and the results are displayed in Table 4.44. 206: The ranking pattern among male and female respondents on Risk appetite factors is same TABLE 6.28 MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG GENDER GROUPS ON RISK APPETITE FACTORS Test Hospital | Natural Personal Statistics | Inflation | expenses | Accidents| diaster | Terrorism | disability Mann- Whitney | 1258.500 | 1265.000 | 1319.000 | 1344.500 | 1354.000 | 1245.000 U Zz -1.059 -1.029 -0.682 -0.526 -0.465 -1.147 ‘Asymp. Sig. (2- 290 | .303 495, 599 642) | 251 | tailed) | a, Grouping Variable: Gender _ Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that very small values of Z and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among male and female respondents on various factors of risk appetite. 2076.5.2 Test for ranking pattern among Marital status groups on Risk Appetite factors The mean ranking given by the married and unmarried respondents on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. The married respondents had given the factor hospital expenses the top priority, as well as unmarried respondents. The married respondents have lesser preference than unmarried respondents on the factors Terrorism, Personal disability and Other factors. TABLE 6.29 MARITAL STATUS-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE Z | —s Marital status Risk Appetite factor ed | Unmarried | Total | Inflation 3.55 | 3.82 3.64 | Hospital expenses 3.08 | 3.15 aud Accidents 3.32 3.29 3.31 Natural disaster 3.75, 4.29 3.92 ‘Terrorism 4.42 “4.15 4.34 Personal disability 4.49 4.26 4.42 Others 5.33 4.71 5.14 | Source: Primary data In order to see if there is any difference in the ranking of factors of risk appetite by married and unmarried respondents, Mann-Whitney U Test was carried out with the null hypothesis of no difference in the ranking pattern of married and unmarried respondents and the results are shown in the following table. 208TABLE 6.30 MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG MARITAL STATUS GROUPS ON RISK APPETITE FACTORS ‘Test Statistics |Inflation| Hospital | Accidents) Natural pore Personal expenses disaster disability Mann-Whitney U | 121.000) 1235.500| 1280.000| 1059.000 |1186.500, 1213.500 Wilcoxon —_| 417.000) 4161.500| 4206.000 | 3985.000 |1781.500, 1808.500 w Zi -.532 | -375 -079 | -1.544 | -.697 | -.517 Asymp. Sig. 595 .708 937 123 486 605 (2-tailea) Source: Primary data a, Grouping Variable: Marital status It can be seen from the above table that very small values of Z and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among married and unmarried respondents on various factors of risk appetite. 2096.5.3Test for ranking pattern among Age groups on Risk Appetite factors ‘The mean ranking given by the respondents in different age group on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. The respondents in the age group 36-45 years had given the factor hospital expenses the top priority. TABLE 6.31 AGE-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE Risk Appetite factor ser peeue Upto 25] 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-60 | Total Tflation 3.89 | 358 | 347 | 367 | 364 Hospital expenses 325 | 3.19 | 293 | 3.00 | 3.10 Accidents 3.56 3.31 3.11 3.33 3.31 Natural disaster 414 [415 [360 | 4.00 | 3.92 Terrorism 3.97 | 465 | 440 | 5.00 | 4.34 Personal disability 417 | 442 | 460 | 467 | 442 Source: Primary data In order to see if there is any difference in the ranking of factors of risk appetite by respondents in different age groups, Kruskal Wallis Test was carried out with the null hypothesis of no difference in the ranking pattern of respondents in different age groups and the results are shown in the following table. 210TABLE 6.32 KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG AGE GROUPS ON RISK APPETITE FACTORS Test | Inflation] Hospital | Accidenty Natural |Terrorism| Personal Statistics: expenses disaster disability Chi- 634 693 2.011 | 2.365 | 2.679 1.036 Square at 3 3 | # 3 3 a L : 7 = Asymp. | .889 875 570 500 Aa4 792, Sig. I Source: Primary data a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Age group It can be seen from the above table that very small values of chi-square and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among respondents in different age groups on various factors of risk appetite. 2u16.5.4 Test for ranking pattern among Qualification groups on Risk Appetite factors ‘The mean ranking given by the respondents in different Qualification group on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. The respondents in all the qualification groups had given the factor hospital expenses the top priority. In order to see if there is any difference in the ranking of factors of risk appetite by respondents with different qualification, Kruskal Wallis Test was carried out with the null hypothesis of no difference in the ranking pattern of respondents with different qualification and the results are shown in the following table. TABLE 6.33 QUALIFICATION-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE Risk Appetite __ Qualification factors Upto | HSc. | Diploma/ Post Total SSLC uG | Graduate Inflation 3.10 | 3.41 3.78 3.71 3.64 Hospital expenses | _ 2.10 | 3.06 | 3.20 3.26 3.10 | Accidents 2.30 | 2.94 3.45 3.59 3.31 Natural disaster | 3.50 | 3.65 | 4.12 3.88 3.92 Terrorism as 5.30 | 4.24 4.20 4.29 4.34 Personal disability | 5.40 | 4.65 | 4.43 4.00 | 4.42 212TABLE 6.34 KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG QUALIFICATION GROUPS ON RISK APPETITE FACTORS Test Statistics Inflation Hospital |Accidents Natural hsiectal Personal expenses disaster disability chi, | 1.199 | 3.601 6.906 2.276 2.944 | 2.990 Square df 3 3 ot 3 3 3 Asymp. | .753 308 075 S17 400 393 Sig. Source: Primary data a, Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Qualification It can be seen from the above table that very small values of chi-square and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among respondents with different qualification on various factors of risk appetite. 2136.5.5 Test for ranking pattern among Profession groups on Risk Appetite factors ‘The mean ranking given by the respondents in different Profession group on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. The Government employees and self-employed respondents had given top priority to Accidents while the Semi- Government employees, Private employees and Others had given top priority to Hospital expenses. TABLE 6.35 PROFESSION-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE : Profession Govt. |Semi-Govt., Self | Private |Others| Total employee| employee | employed | employee | _ ates Mean Mean | Mean _| Mean | Mean Inflation 3.63 3.27 | 4.04 3.35 | 2.43 | 3.64 Hospital expenses | __ 3.25 3.18 3.38 | 2.77 2.14 | 3.10 Accidents 3.13 3.36 321_| 352 | 3.29 | 3.31 Natural diaster 2.75 4.55 404 | 3.55 | 5.00 | 3.02 Terrorism 4.13 4.64 4.21 439 | 4.86 | 4.34 | Personal diability | 5.13 | 4.00 4.28 4e8_| 4.14 | 4.42 Source: Primary data In order to see if there is any difference in the ranking of factors of risk appetite by respondents with different profession, Kruskal Wallis Test was carried out with the null hypothesis of no difference in the ranking pattern of respondents with different profession and the results are shown in the following table. 214TABLE 6.36 KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG PROFESSION GROUPS ON RISK APPETITE FACTORS ‘Test Hospital Natural Personal inflation \Accidents| frerrorism ‘Statisticss9| expenses disaster disability chi- | 5.157 | 3.999 | .708 9.614 | 1.341 | 2615 Square at 4 4 4 4 fe Asymp. | .272 406 950 047 854 624 Sig | Source: Primary data a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Profession It can be seen from the above table that very small values of chi-square and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite (except Natural disaster) verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among respondents with different profession on various factors of risk appetite. However, the high chi-square (9.614) with very low p-value (<.05) signifies that there is a significant difference in the ranking pattern of the factor natural disaster among respondents with different profession. 2156.5.6 Test for ranking pattern among Income group on Risk Appetite factors ‘The mean ranking given by the respondents in different Income group on different factors of risk appetite is given in the following table. The respondents with income upto Rs.2 lakhs had given top priority to Accidents all others had given top priority to Hospital expenses. TABLE 6.37 INCOME-WISE RANKING OF FACTORS OF RISK APPETITE Annual Income Risk Appetite Upto2 | 23 | Above3 factor Lakh | Lakh | Lakh Inflation 3.94 3.13 3.67 Hospital expenses 3.28 2.92 2S Accidents 3.20 3.44 3.67 Natural diaster 4.00 | 3.69 4.50 Terrorism 4.23 4.41 5.00 Personal diability 4.12 5.03 3.67 Source: Primary data In order to see if there is any difference in the ranking of factors of risk appetite by respondents with different income groups, Kruskal Wallis Test was carried out with the null hypothesis of no difference in the ranking pattern of respondents with different income groups and the results are shown in the following table. 216TABLE 6.38 KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST FOR RANKING PATTERN AMONG INCOME GROUPON RISK APPETITE FACTORS ] Test Inflation Hospital |Accidents | Natural [errorism| Personal Statistics expenses disaster disability Chi- 3.446 3.032 1.181 2.295 .734 5.136 Square df 2 2 2 2 2 2 Asymp. 178 .220 554 317 693 077 Sig. a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Annual Income It can be seen from the above table that very small values of chi-square and very high values of p (>.05) for all the factors of risk appetite verify that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses and it is concluded that the distribution of ranking pattern is same among respondents with different income groups on various factors of risk appetite. 2176.6 Logistic Regression Analysis The general logistic regression model relates the probability that an event (such as recommending to HIS others) will occur to k independent variables x1, x1, x2, ... ,xx. This general model is Mrhnrsebe) Ph) asR A ART where p(x1, x1, x2, ... , x) is the probability that the event will occur when the values of the independent variables are x1, x1, x2, ... Xe In order to estimate ,9,»,..,we obtain n observations, with each observation consisting of observed values of x1, x1, x2, ... .xx and of a dependent variable y. In this study, y is a dummy variable that equal 1 if the event has occurred (the HIS is recommended to others) and 0 otherwise. The researcher made an attempt to develop a logistic regression model for predicting the probability as to whether an individual will recommend the HIS to others or not using the independent variables — several attributes of HIS and also the demographic variables like age, gender, income, etc. The SPSS software is used to develop the model with stepwise forward LR method to take care of the multicollinearity problems. The researcher has categorized the responses of the respondents on the question ‘Are you interested in recommending the health insurance operator to others?’ into two categories - the response ‘Definitely’ has been taken as the respondent will ‘recommend?’ the HIS to others and the responses ‘Not sure’ and ‘No’ have been categorized as ‘not recommending’. The independent variables - ten attributes of HIS considered for the study like Policy Docket Information, Policy related services, etc. as taken as interval-numeric variables and the demographic variables are taken as categorical-qualitative variables as has been coded below. 218TABLE 6.39 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - CATEGORICAL VARIABLES CODINGS Demographic Variable Freque | Parameter coding | PSY | (a) | (2) | (3) | (4) Govt.employee 77 1}ololo Semi-Govt.employee | 55 o}/1j]o]o Profession _| Self employed 27 | o]|o}1]o Private employee |pa5G. 2] Ge | oO, Ipoh) Others 31 oflololo Upto SSLC 70 1/0] 0 eee Vetcy 79 ot 7 jo Qualification | loma/UG zs |o|o]|1 Post Graduate 216 oO oO 0 Upto 25 163 tr] 6 |o 26-35 isa | ol 1fo pee em | cas 24 ofo}1 46-60 41 ololo Upto 2 Lakh 302 | 1 | 0 ma 2-3 Lakh a7} ol] 1 | Above 3 Lakh 50. o|ol|_ Marital Married 425 | 1 stafus | Unmarried 175 | 0 _| Male } 353 | 1 Gender Female 247 oO Source: Primary data The following table gives omnibus tests of model coefficients. These values test whether or not all of the variables entered in the equation (for model), all of the variables entered in the current block (for block), or the current increase in the model fit (for step) have a significant effect. The chi-square is provided for each step in the model, and we are working with only one block. 219TABLE 6.40 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - OMNIBUS TESTS OF MODEL COEFFICIENTS chi- df | Sig. square Step 25.713] 3 | .o00 Step 1 [Block | 25.713) 3 | .000 Model | 25.713] 3 -000 Step 5.429) 1 .020 Step2 [Block | 31.142) 4 | .000 Model | 31.142| 4 | .000 | |Step 6.063) 1 | 014 Step3 |Block | 37.205} 5 | .000 Model | 37.205) 5 | .000 | Source: Primary data In our case, a high chi-square value for the model and step for Step 1 indicates that the first variable added to the model significantly. impacts the dependent variable. The step chi-square for Step 2 indicates that adding a second variable significantly improves the model, and the model chi-square for Step 2 indicates the model including two variables is significant. Also step chi-square for Step 3 is also significantly improving model (p <.10). 220The following table describes the model summary measures to indicate how well the model fits the data. TABLE 6.41 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - MODEL SUMMARY i, | -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke °P | tikelihood | R Square R Square 1 | 242.7118 098 | 148 2 | 237.2828 117 178 231.2208 138 .210 Source: Primary data a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001. It can be seen from the table that -2 log likelihood values are smaller to mean that the model fits the data better. Also it can be seen that Cox & Snell R-square is 13.8% which means that about 14 % variation in the dependent variable is accounted for by all the predictor variables. The Nagelkereke R-Square for the model is 21%, which means that 21% of the variation in the dependent variable ‘Recommend to others or not’ is explained by the predictor variables. 221‘The following table gives the results of the goodness-of-fit test for the observed values and expected values fitted by the model. i TABLE 6.42 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - HOSMER AND LEMESHOW TEST OF step| Chi-square| df | sig. 1 -000 2 1,000 2 18.325 | 8 | 0.019 3 11.275 8 0.187 Source: Primary data It can be seen from the above table that the small chi-square value of 11.275 at 8 degrees of freedom with a p-value of 0.187 (>.05) signifies that there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of the model fits the data well. 222The following Classification table compares the predicted values for the dependent variable, based on the regression model, with the actual observed values in the data. TABLE 6.43 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - CLASSIFICATION TABLEA Predicted Observed Recommend Percentage Yes | No Correct Yes | 36 | 101 26.3 Recommend Step 1 No | 34 | 429 92.7 Overall Percentage 776 Yes | 17 | 120 12.3 Recommend Step 2 No | 14 | 449 96.9 Overall Percentage 77.6 | Yes | 29 | 108 21.1 Recommend Step 3 No | 17 | 446 96.4 Overall Percentage 79.2 a. The cut value is .500 In this case, the Model 3 variables can predict which value of the ‘Recommend or not’ is observed in the data more than 79 per cent of the time. 223‘The following table gives the variables included in the model based on model 3 with three variables Policy Docket Information, Support of Hospitalization and Qualification of HIS policyholders at three levels SSLC, HSc and Diploma/Graduates. TABLE 6.44 LOGISTIC REGRESSION - VARIABLES IN THE EQUATION ‘Model 3 B S.E. | Wald | df| Sig. | Expip) | [pater beer 0.439 | 0.176 | 6.212) 1 | 0.013) 1.551 | Information Support of Hospltalisation -0.264 | 0.227] 1.344] 1 | 0.246 | 0.768 Qualification | | 18.15] 3 0 = { Qual_SSLC -1.217 | 0.455 7.16} 1 | 0.007| 0.296 Qual_HSe 2.21| 1.05) 4.427| 1 | 0.035 | 9.115 Qual_Dip/Graduate | 0.477] 0.374] 1.625| 1 | 0.202] 1.612 Constant 0.546 | 0.791 | 0.476 | 1 | 0.490| 1.726 Source: Primary data The magnitude of B in the above table indicates the effect of the predictor variable on the predicted variable. In this case, the variable policy docket information has the positive effect and the variable support of hospitalization has a. negative effect on the dependent variable. Of these two variables, policy docket information is statistically significant (p<.05) and is the main predictor with a coefficient of 0.439; the other variable support of hospitalization with a coefficient of -0.264 though not statistically significant (p>.05), however important in predicting the dependent variable as it has been included in the model. Similarly the SSLC qualification has a negative coefficient of -1.217 and HSc qualification has a positive coefficient of 2.21 are statistically significant (p<.05). Again, through the qualification Diploma/ Graduates have a positive coefficient of 0.477, they are not statistically significant (p>.05), however important in prediction. The constant term with a coefficient of 0.546 is not statistically significant. 2248 eee 6.7 Analysis of Claim The researcher had also studied as to whether the respondents had made any claims on their policies and the difficulties faced by them during the course of their claim. The outcomes on this claim analysis are being discussed in this part. The following table shows whether the respondents made any claim against their policies taken on health insurance. TABLE 6.45 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS MAKING CLAIMS Made claim? | Frequency | Percent No 92 14.8 __ ¥en 508 85.2 Total 600 100.0 _| Source: Primary data FIGURE 6.2 j | | ool | ws) | | | ¢ | = 200! al a | ade claims? It can be seen that out 600 respondents who have taken health insurance policies 508 respondents (85 per cent) have made claim against their policies. The number of times claims have been made by respondents is given in the following table. 225TABLE 6.46 DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF CLAIMS MADE BY RESPONDENTS No.of times | Frequency | Percent One time 240 40 2-3 times 320 53 >3 times 40 7 Total 600 100.0 Source: Primary data FIGURE 6.3 |) = = a | rl | 7 Sm: 3 times No.of Claims It can be observed from the above table that 240 respondents (about 40 per cent) have made claim for one time, 320 respondents (about 53 per cent) have made claim for 2 to 3 times and a very minimal amount of respondents (7 per cent) have made claim for more than 3 times. 226‘The following table shows whether the respondents faced any difficulties in making claim against their policies taken on health insurance. TABLE 6.47 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS FACING DIFFICULTIES IN MAKING CLAIMS Difficulty faced | Frequency | Percent No 560 93.3 Yes 40 67 | | oat 600 100.0 Source: Primary data FIGURE 6.4 It can be seen that out 600 respondents who have made claims, most of the respondents (more than 93 per cent) have not faced any difficulty in making their claim. This implies that health insurance companies do not lay down any strict and cumbersome formalities for making claim against the policies taken by their customers. However, despite facing no difficulty in making claim, the customers are not whole heartedly willing to recommend to others, the company in which they are holding policies. ‘This has been clearly visible in the following table. 227TABLE 6.48 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS WILLING TO RECOMMEND HIS TO OTHERS | winting to recommend _| Frequency | Percent Definitely 134 22 | Not sure 164 27 _No 302 51 Total 600 100.0 Source: Primary data FIGURE 6.5 It is very much apparent that only 134 respondents (nearly 22 per cent) out of 600 respondents who have taken Health Insurance policies said that they will recommend HIS schemes to others; the remaining 78 per cent of the respondents stated that they are not sure and will not recommend HIS schemes to others. This implies that the health insurance products have not become quite familiar among the respondents in Namakkal district. It is suggested that the health insurance companies should take necessary promotional measures to popularize their products in Namakkal district. 228CHAPTER - VII FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION The study was aimed to analyze the overall performance of the health insurance industry and to identify the factors influencing to the success of the health insurance companies in the study area. For this purpose, an attempt has been made to analyze the impact of socio-economic factors in their motivation to become a policy holder of health insurance products. Further, the first-hand information was collected through the random sampling method. The data thus collected were subdivided into the suitable tabular forms for drawing conclusions. Simple statistical tools like, Percentages, Chi-Square test, t-test, weighted average ranking method and Anova were used for the analysis. In this chapter, an attempt has been made, to recapitulate the key findings and conclusion, Based on these findings, a few recommendations are made. The details are given in the following. FINDINGS * The samples respondents for the study consist of 60 per cent of males and 40 per cent of females. This implies that there is more number of male policyholders in Namakkal district than female policyholders. About 39 per cent of the respondents are in the age group of 36- 45 years; about 27 per cent of the respondents are in the age group of 26-35 years; about 25 per cent of the respondents are in the age group of up to 25 years; Only about 8 per cent of the respondents are in the age group of above 46 years, ‘ Out of total respondents, 71 per cent are married and the remaining 29 per cent are unmarried respondents. 229* Almost 74 per cent of the respondents are with the minimum qualification of diploma/ graduate. * The study consists of 40 per cent respondents are self- employed; about 29 per cent of respondents are working in private sector, about 14 per cent are government employees, about 10 per cent are working in semi-government organizations and 7 per cent are professions. Around 52 per cent of the respondents are with the family annual income of upto Rs.2 lakhs; 39 per cent of respondents are with the family annual income of Rs.2 to Rs.3 lakhs. This implies that more than nine out of ten of the total sample are with family annual income below Rs.3 lakhs. Only 8 per cent of the respondents are with family annual income of Rs.3 lakhs and above. The number of family members are upto four in 91 per cent of the respondents. Almost 96 per cent of the respondents are aware of health insurance schemes and their benefits and costs. % Out of total respondents, 38 per cent of them know about health insurance schemes through their friends/relatives; about 28 per cent of respondents know about HIS through company advertisements; about 22 per cent of respondents know through television advertisements and about 13 per cent know through newspaper advertisements. * The intention of 44 per cent of respondents for taking health insurance schemes is family protection; about 26 per cent of respondents are taking HIS for self protection, about 20 per cent are taking HIS for accident benefits. 10 per cent are taking HIS. for medical expenses and tax savings. Hence it can be construed that the main motive of taking HIS is family protection and self protection. : 230About 62 per cent of the respondents have two numbers of policies; 35 per cent of respondents are holding one policy. About 69 per cent of the respondents are having policies for two to three years; about 24 per cent of the respondents have policies for the period of one year. Only 7 per cent of the respondents have their policies for more than four years. Out of total respondents, 55 per cent of them pay their annual premium of Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000. Around 25 per cent of respondents are paying their annual premium upto Rs.10,000, While about 20 per cent of the respondents pay more than Rs. 15,000 as their annual premium. Almost one third of the total respondents prefer to pay their premium on quarterly basis; 31 per cent of respondents pay their premium on annual basis; and 26 per cent are paying their premium every month, 11 per cent are paying their premium in the half-yearly mode. Out of the total respondents, 48 per cent of the respondents are aware about The Companies Act, 1956, about 44 per cent are aware about Insurance Act, 1938; about 42 per cent are aware about IRDA Act, 1999; about 42 per cent are aware about IRDA Regulations; about 42 per cent are aware about IT Act, 1961; about 40 per cent are aware about Actuaries Act, 2006; this implies that almost 40 per cent of the respondents are aware of these provisions. ‘They study reveals that most of the respondents (about 45 per cent) are having family policies; 31 per cent have individual mediclaim and group insurance policies; about 17 per cent of respondents are having unit-linked policies. One out of every two respondents have their HIS policies with ICICI as well as in Star Health; About 52 per cent of 231respondents had their HIS in Star Health and 50 per cent of the respondents are holding their HIS in ICICI of India. These two operators Star Health and ICICI are more popular among the respondents. Three out of every ten have their policies with Relaince; also 17 per cent of customers have their policies with Birla Sun Life. These four companies, i.e., ICICI, Star Health, Relaince and Birla Sun Life are current holding a considerable share in the health insurance market. The share of other players like LIC, Max Life, AVIVA, Tata AIG, Met Life, Future General, etc. are negligible and these operators not popular among respondents in Namakkal district. There is no association between awareness on HIS and the demographic variables gender, age and marital status. There is a significant association between the demographic variables age, marital status, profession and mode of awareness on HIS. More than one third of the respondents in the age group above 25 years know about HIS schemes through their friends/relatives. The respondents with age below 25 years know more about HIS schemes only through company advertisements. There is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on ‘The Companies Act, 1956. The association between marital status and awareness on The Companies Act, 1956 is marginally significant. There is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on Insurance Act, 1938. 232There is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, qualification and profession and awareness on The IRDA Act, 1999. There is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, qualification and profession and awareness on IRDA - Regulations and Functions. ‘There is a significant association between the demographic variables age, qualification and profession and awareness on Income Tax Act, 1961. There is a significant association between the demographic variables gender, age, marital status, qualification and profession and awareness on Actuaries Act, 2006. ‘The factor ‘Health/Risk coverage’ is the most influencing factor before taking HIS, followed by the factor ‘Premium charges’. The factor ‘day care benefits’ was least considered by the respondents before taking HIS. There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of various factors like day care benefits, pre-post hospital charges, etc. among male and female respondents. There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, and Track record of settlement among different age group of respondents. The respondents in the age group 26-35 years were mostly influenced by the factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, and Track record of settlement, whereas the respondents in the age group 35-40 years were mostly influenced by the factors Brand Value and Policyholders helpline services. 233% There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre-post hospital expenses and Health/Risk coverage among married and unmarried respondents. * There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Day care benefits, Pre-post hospital expenses, Health/Risk coverage, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services, Track record of settlement, and Discount coupons among respondents in different professions. It is also evident from the analysis that the Semi-Govt. employees are more influenced by the factors than the respondents in other professions + There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Pre-post hospital expenses, Brand Value, Policyholders helpline services and Track record of settlement among respondents in different income groups. * There is no significant difference in the level of agreement on the influencing factors among respondents with different intensions before taking HIS, There is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the influence of various factors like policy related services, settlement procedures, issuance of policy docket, etc. among male and female respondents. * There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Issuance of policy docket, Portability, Convenience of premium payment and Documentation procedure among different age group of respondents. * There is a significant difference in the level of satisfaction on these factors among married and unmarried respondents in respect of factors Issuance of policy docket, Switch over to other 234 2+ schemes, Portability, Convenience of premium payment, and Documentation procedure. There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Settlement procedures, Issuance of policy docket, Grievance Redressal System, and — Support hospitalisation among respondents in different professions. There is a significant difference in the level of agreement on the influence of factors Switchover to other schemes and Convenience of premium payment among respondents in different income groups. ‘There is a significant difference in the level of satisfaction on the factor Insurance of policy docket among respondents with different intensions before taking HIS. There is no significant association between gender, qualification, profession, income and method of analysis, but however, there is a significant association between age, marital status, and method of analysis. Also there is no significant association between awareness on HIS, Intention, of taking HIS, No.of policies held and method of analysis. On the other hand, the association between Type of HIS held and method of analysis is statistically significant, There is no significant association between gender, age, marital status, qualification, profession, income of respondents and assuming risk. However, the association between awareness on HIS and assuming risk is statistically significant. Regarding the factors of risk appetite, the respondents have chosen to give highest rank to the factor ‘hospital expenses’ followed by ‘accidents’. ‘The respondents have given least preference to the factor ‘personal disability’. The distribution of ranking pattern is same among gender and marital status of 235respondents on various factors of risk appetite. The ranking pattern of the factor natural disaster among respondents with different profession is not same and statistically significant. The factor policy docket information has the positive effect and the factor support of hospitalization has a negative effect on whether the respondent will recommend the HIS to others. Of these two factors, policy docket information is statistically significant, and is the main predictor; the other factor support of hospitalization, though not statistically significant, but however, important in predicting the dependent variable. Similarly the SSLC qualification has a negative tendency in recommending to others and respondents with H.Sc. qualification have a positive tendency to recommend the policy to others. Moreover, though the respondents with Diploma/Graduates qualification have a positive tendency, they are not statistically significant, but important in prediction of recommending HIS to others. ‘SUGGESTIONS Through this study, the following suggestions were made to the various parties, those who were involved in the health insurance industry like individual policyholders, health insurers / Operators, Regulating bodies and Government for improving the health insurance policyholders’ preferences in health insurance sector. A. For Policyholders i Before making a health insurance policy in the insurance market, policyholders should carefully read and understand policy document or prospectus thoroughly. And they need to understand thoroughly, the benefits and costs of insurance products along with the claim settlement processes. 236ii, iv. vi. Policyholders they must update them-selves about the regulatory procedures / amendments of the regulations of IRDA as and then. Policyholders are advised to buy the health insurance policy in atleast two among the best policies which cover their individual care and family care. Policyholders are advised to hold health policy in a public or private health insurer for a long term to gain more benefits of the policy. Policyholders need to attend the awareness programmes on health insurance conducted by the regulators or the companies. Policyholders should have complete knowledge about risk coverage, claim procedures, tax benefits, accidental benefits and other features associated while making the health policy. B. For Health Insurers i ii. iii. iv. To understand the investors’ preferences relating to their policy requirements. To comply with all formalities with the policy and claim settlements. To provide the assurance for the basic needs of the policyholders. Requiring insurers to offer both group and individual policies, Prescribing standards on point-of-sale and after-sales disclosures specific to health insurance. 237For Regulators (IRDA) ii. iii. iv. Additional and separate educational and practical training should be required in the licensing of health insurance agents and intermediaries to strengthen policyholder protection and to promote and develop industry’s technical competence in health insurance. Separate “file and use” guidelines that address special features and characteristics of health insurance should also be adopted as a measure to monitor and ensure that the premium charged under a health cover is reasonable in relation to benefits covered. Separate reserving rules should be considered for the different categories of health insurance, especially taking into account the short-term versus long-term nature of contracts, whether policies provide indemnity or assured benefits, and considering the particular loss experience of varying health insurance products. Redress of Public Grievance (RPG) Rules should be enhancéd. Redress is integral to insurance and the RPG system has proved to be the most effective mechanism for external resolution of policyholders’ complaints and grievances. In addition to the above there are areas where the IRDA should frame and promulgate _ separate regulations specific to health insurance, including the following: Minimum regulatory definition of pre-existing illness or condition to provide clarity and uniformity of its 238———— vi. vii. viii, xi. xii. interpretation, including prescribing maximum “look- back” and “look-forward” periods. Incontestability of a health insurance contract after it has remained in force for a specified period of time from date of inception. Prohibition of post-claims underwriting. . Adopting separate guidelines for “file and use” and, in certain (rural health insurance) cases, “use and file” for health insurance products. Adopting reserving rules specific to the different types of health insurance contracts. Particularly for medical expense covers, additional regulations that prescribe the following: (a) Availability or accessibility (b) Transferability or portability (9. Continuity (renewability and cancellation) (4) Rules on over-insurance, in the case of individual covers, and coordination of benefits, in the case of group covers. Create training and education programmes that specialize in health insurance and require special licenses for people who sell health insurance. Create incentives for companies to expand their markets to a broad section of the population and remove tax advantages for those that do not. 239D. For Government ii. Provide for dedicated funding of public education about health insurance through IRDA and_ insurance companies. For example, use dedicated licensing fees paid to IRDA for public awareness about health insurance. Similarly, require insurance companies, through their associations and with oversight from IRDA, to provide better information on both the pitfalls and the promises of health insurance coverage. Set up a consumer advisory board to IRDA. Allow foreign organizations to establish significantly increased ownership of companies. Their greater participation would provide both capital and know how to the health insurance industry. Regulate health insurance as a separate market. While all licensed companies should be able to participate (multi-line as well as health insurance only) there should be separate health-insurance-focused requirements and separate regulations that must be met by all participants in health insurance. Involve the Ministry of Health in insurance regulation with respect to quality improvement and medical effectiveness. For example, health ministry expertise in accreditation, practice guidelines and _ licensing standards is needed to establish and require these credentials for providers inchided in insurance networks. 240CONCLUSION The legal and regulatory framework of health insurance sector, particularly because it operates in the voluntary market, should continually balance competing goals of access, affordability and quality of healthcare and provide health coverage to a larger fraction of the population with varying risk characteristics and ability to pay. Regulations, aside from their aim of providing protection of health insurance policyholders and beneficiaries, can be potent tools to promote access to healthcare, control pricing of health coverage vis- a-vis healthcare providers and enhance quality of healthcare. Allowing the participation of other entities that provide health coverage, such as MCOs, HMOs, Hospital and/or Professional entities, and self-insured health insurance schemes of Mutual Benefit Associations and Cooperatives would further increase the reach and depth of private health insurance. Licensing standards for compliance which are enforced on health care provider facilities as well as self-regulation in the medical profession and within provider groups are necessary for continuing improvement of healthcare quality. Health insurance sector cannot grow if reasonable policy holders’ expectations relating to access, cost and quality of healthcare remain promises rather than realities. Health insurance industry requires new strategies in order to survive and survive successfully. To tap the insurance potential to maximum industry needs to frame such plans and strategies that will help to capture the market. Companies instead of focusing only on improving the variety of products needs to focus on targeting new segments and implement innovative strategies in order to achieve sustained growth and ensure profitability of business as well as growth of health insurance coverage. Raising the awareness of the customer has two fold advantages- it helps in imparting the knowledge 241of insurance in general and insurance provider in particular. In a country like India where many villages are in the media dark zones, there should be some pro activeness to bring them to the main stream of the economy. The Indian insurance companies can think of some model for raising the awareness levels of health insurance in the rural markets. Insurance Companies Consortium can also think of publishing small monthly magazines to be distributed to rural people at Melas, Markets, Jatras and village Fairs by conducting exhibitions. Innovative attractions like distributing prizes for answering simple questions can be announced to attract the visitors. The monthly magazines can be stuffed with matters relating to wealth management, life insurance and the advantage of life insurance over other savings. It can also highlight agricultural practices, self- employment generation programmes in rural areas, government policies for rural upliftment, legal suggestions and other issues to attract the rural people towards the magazines. The private players need to boost their sales and operations by perfecting the Service Index Meters (SIM) with a view to provide the best service to the policy holders in the health insurance industry. 242