The policy holders purchased insurance policies keeping in view several factors such as risk cover, tax saving, investment purpose and confidence building. Table 9 depicted the factors of importance of life insurance according to policy holders. It revealed that majority (72.33%) of the total policy holders purchased a policy as a tax saving factor followed by 44.67 per cent of respondents who took life insurance policy to cover the risk at the time of adversities in life and 35.33 percent for confidence building. However 28.33 per cent were of those policy holders who purchased the policy in order to make investment to earn profit If we see the region wise classification it revealed that factors like risk cover, investment purpose and confidence building were equally considered in all the 3 regions as conveyed by the non-significant Z-values. But the factor of tax saving secured significantly the highest consideration for purchasing insurance policy in 1ST region (87.00%), followed by 2ND (69.00%) and 3RD region (61.00%). This was indicated by the significant Z-values between 1ST and 2ND and 1ST and 3RD. The region wise comparison between 3RD and 2ND gave a non significant difference as similar pattern was observed in the thinking of importance of insurance by policy holders. Main reasons of sticking to a particular company by policy holders

Main reasons of sticking to a particular company by Policy holders

Policy holders keep many factors in view while purchasing an insurance policy. Their responses in this regard are presented in Table 10. The highest proportion i.e. 54.00 percent of the total policy holders purchased an insurance policy due to less

2

percent of them purchased an insurance policy keeping in view the better services provided by the company followed by 23.67 percent keeping in view quality of insurance policy as well as of company. The pattern of consideration of different reasons of purchasing an insurance policy was found to be similar in the three regions under study as was observed in case of total policy holders. However, less premium was considered by a significantly higher proportion of 3RD policy holders (62.00%) as compared to 1ST policy holders (48.00%). Though less premium attracted the attention of policy holders in all the regions but it was at the highest level im 3RD region.

The policy holder respondents were asked to rank different sources of information influencing their policy purchase decision. Five sources were put before the respondents for ranking. Weighted mean scores of ranks were calculated to evaluate an overall rank secured by different sources. With the help of ANOVA, comparisons between regions and sources were also made. The results, thus, obtained are presented in Table 11. The analysis revealed that among total policy holders, the highest rank was secured by visits of insurance agents (3.60), followed by general advertising (3.17) and direct mail advertising (3.16). The lowest rank significant differences in the weighted rank mean score given to different sources of information about insurance policies among total policy holders. In 1ST region, the highest rank was in favour of visits of insurance agents while the second major source came to direct mail advertising. In 2ND region, highest rank score was secured by direct mail advertising and the second by general advertising. In 3RD region, this order was visits of insurance agents and general advertising. The differences in mean scores of different sources of information were significant in all three regions as indicated by the respective F-ratios. Comparison of different sources between regions showed that the ranking of visits of insurance agents was significantly the highest in 1ST region (4.13) and the lowest in 2ND region (2.94). However, the weighted score of general advertising came to be significantly the highest in 2ND region (3.52) and the lowest in 1ST region (2.78). Direct mail advertising secured the highest rank score by 2ND policy holders (4.06) and the lowest by 3RD policy holders (1.87). The sources of newspapers and magazines were at par in the three regions. The analysis showed that the importance of various sources of information influencing policy holders in decision making was different in 1ST, 2ND and 3RD region of Haryana. Thus, the companies should evolve different suitable policies and plans for different regions.

Level of satisfaction of policy holders on the performance of the company

The policy holders were asked to express their level of satisfaction on the performance of the company with the attributes of ‘highly satisfied’, ‘satisfied’, ‘neutral’, ‘dissatisfied’, ‘highly dissatisfied’. These attributes were assigned weights in the order of 5,4,3,2, and 1 to work out the average level of satisfaction of the policy holders. The average level of satisfaction in the three regions was compared through ANOVA. The results, thus, obtained are presented in Table 12. The analysis showed that 67.00 percent of total respondents were satisfied with the performance of the company while 27.67 percent of them were dissatisfied. Only 5.33 percent of them could not register their opinion in this regard. The average level of satisfaction came to be 3.57 (71.33%) among total policy holders. Though the level of satisfaction was quite high, but still 28.67 percent more satisfaction could be achieved. Insurance companies should make more efforts by exploring the weaknesses in the organization.

Ø Murthi, G.R.K., “Bank Foray into Insurance: Adaptation Challenges”. The ICFAI Journal of Applied Finance, Volume 7, No. 3. Ø N. Vittal, Central vigilance commissioner, “Liberalization of the Insurance Sector: The Road Ahead”, Valedictory Address at drishtikon, College of Business Studies, New Delhi. Ø N.D. Gupta," Insurance-A Booming Professional opportunity", in S.B Verma, Y. Upadhyay and R.K. Shrivastawa," Risk Management in Banking and Insurance", Deep and Deep Publication, New Delhi. Ø Oxford Dictionary and the saurus edited by Julie Elliott with Anne Knight and Chris Cowby, Published by Oxford University press. Ø Raymond A. Bauer and Stephen A. Greyser, “The dialogue that never happens,” Harvard Business Review. Ø Raymond A. Bauer and Stephen A. Greyser, Advertising in America: the Consumer View, Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration. Ø Robert C. Wells, quoted in James Bishop and Henry W. Hubbard, Let The Seller Beware. Ø Robert L. Birmingham, “The consumer as king: The Economics of precarious sovereignty.” Case Western Reserve Law . Ø Robert Moran, "Consumerism and Marketing," Marketing Science Institute.