CHAPTER -5
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND FINDINGS
T
his chapter deals with the description of the sample of 1000 policyholders focused on demographic factors (gender, age, religion, residence) data analysis and its interpretation. The chapter has been divided into three major sections. Section 5.1 deals with important descriptive statistics, demographic profile of the policyholders, and frequency distribution. The section 5.2 deals with designing of the constructs with respect to objective and hypotheses of the study, analyzing the validity of various constructs related to the study. The construct validity includes convergent, discriminant as well as face validity. After analyzing the constructs validity the structural model was tested and explained. Section 5.3 provides associations with the variables with respect to various demographic characteristics of the policyholders. In this section comparison of mean values, p-values, z-statistics and t-statistics is also provided for the purpose of testing various hypotheses.5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE POLICYHOLDERS
The marketing concept was born out of the awareness that marketing starts with the determination of policyholder wants and ends with satisfaction of those wants. The entire business environment operates in a dynamic scenario where it is not easy to solve the puzzle of buyer decision making. Policyholders vary tremendously in terms of age, income and educational levels.
Marketers also find it useful to distinguish different policyholder groups and segments and to develop product and services tailored to these needs. Thus presentation of sample profile would provide a clearer understanding of the marketing environment in which policyholders are placed. Policyholders purchase decisions are significantly influenced by their cultural, social and geographical factors that are uncontrollable by marketers. Therefore this section elaborates profile of the policyholders.
TABLE 5.1: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of location or residence (N=1000)
Region Frequency Percent
Rural 500 50.0%
Urban 500 50.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
As policyholder behaviour of Indian policyholder forms a part of this study, an attempt has been made to draw a broad sketch of rural and urban policyholders. As the country is vast geographically, market by great diversity in climate, religion, region, language, life style, educational level and economic status, Indian policyholder present a varied view. Hence the sample comprised of rural and urban areas, from different regions and religions. The total numbers of policyholders were 1000, where 500 policyholders were those from rural background and 500 policyholders were from urban areas as shown in table 5.1. The graphical representation is also provided herewith.
TABLE 5.2: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of Gender (N=1000)
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 770 77.0%
Female 230 23.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
The second important demographic variable was gender which is an important variable for marketers in more than one aspect. In this chapter it is proposed to discuss demographic and socio-economic profile of the policyholders. Demographic characteristics deal with vital statistics about the policyholder such as their age, sex, religion, location, marital status and education whereas socio-economic characteristics deal with financial position, occupation, income, wealth and other such attributes. The total number of policyholders was 1000 where 230 (23%) policyholders were females and 770 (77%) policyholders were males as shown in table 5.2. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of male policyholders.
TABLE 5.3: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of Age groups (N=1000)
Age Group Frequency Percent
Below 25 years 195 19.5%
25-34 years 309 30.9%
35-44 years 192 19.2%
45-54 years 96 9.6%
55-64 years 176 17.6%
64 or Above 32 3.2%
Total 1000 100.0%
People buy goods and services during their life time. Segmenting the market by age provides useful insight into the potential size of markets. As shown in the table 5.3 the policyholders were grouped in six categories and 195 (19.5%) policyholders were below 25 years of age, 309 (30.9%) policyholders were 25-34 years old, 192 policyholders (19.2%) were 35- 44 years old, 96 (9.6%) policyholders were 45-54 years old, 176 (17.6%) policyholders were 55-64 years old and only 32 (3.2%) policyholders were those above 64 years of age. The graph also indicates there was a fair representation of young policyholders who purchased life insurance.
TABLE 5.4: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of Income groups (N=1000)
Income Group (Annual) Frequency
Percent
Less than 1 Lakh 88 8.8%
1 to 1.5 Lakh 109 10.9%
1.5 to 2.5 Lakh 184 18.4%
2.5 to 5 Lakh 275 27.5%
5 to 10 Lakh 264 26.4%
10 Lakh and above 80 8.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
It is obvious that unless people have money or assurance of acquiring it, they cannot be regarded as potential policyholders. The amount of money they can spend will also affect the types of goods they are likely to buy. For this reason most of the analyst study income data. On the social scene the emergence of a large middleclass perhaps the most significant of all developments from the marketing point of view. The middle class in now emerging as the “Consumption Community’ in the country are recognized as educated and rational policyholders. On the basis of income groups of the policyholders it was observed that 88 (8.8%) policyholders were those earning less than `1 lakh, 109 (10.9%) policyholders were those earning between ` 1-1.5 lakh, 184 (18.4%) policyholders were those earning between ` 1.5-2.5 lakh, 257 (27.5%) policyholders were those earning between ` 2.5-5 lakh, 264 (26.4%) were those earning between 5-10 lakh and only 80 (8%) were earning `10 lakh and above as shown in the table 5.4. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders’ falls in the middle class income group of ` 2.5-5 lakh followed by 5-10 lakh.
TABLE 5.5: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of owner’s wealth (N =1000)
Owner’s Wealth Frequency Percent
Below 10 Lakh 283 28.3%
10-50 Lakh 325 32.5%
50 Lakh-1 Crore 192 19.2%
1-5 Crore 72 7.2%
5-10 Crore 104 10.4%
More Than 10 Crore 24 2.4%
Owner’s Wealth Frequency Percent
Below 10 Lakh 283 28.3%
10-50 Lakh 325 32.5%
50 Lakh-1 Crore 192 19.2%
1-5 Crore 72 7.2%
5-10 Crore 104 10.4%
More Than 10 Crore 24 2.4%
Total 1000 100.0%
Consumption is also shaped by family wealth and expenditure pattern therefore it is important to consider owners’ wealth for analysis. As shown in the table above the policyholders grouped in six groups on the basis of owner’s wealth.
The table 5.5 shows that 283 (28.3%) policyholders had wealth below ` 10 lakh, 325 (32.5%) policyholders had wealth of ` 10-50 lakh, 192 (19.2%) policyholders had wealth of ` 50 lakh-1 crore, 72 (7.2%) policyholders had wealth of ` 1-5 crore, 104 (10.4%) policyholders had wealth of ` 5-10 crore and only 24 (2.4%) policyholders had wealth of more than ` 10 crore. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders acquired wealth between ` 10-50 lakh.
TABLE 5.6: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of family head (N =1000)
Head of family Frequency Percent
Grand Father 69 6.9%
Father 539 53.9%
Brother/Sister 56 5.6%
Mother 40 4.0%
You 200 20.0%
Spouse 96 9.6%
Total 1000 100.0%
As shown in the table 5.6 the policyholders showed mixed responses related to heads in their families, in 69 (6.9%) cases grandfather was head of the family, in 539 (53.9%) cases father was the head of the family, in 56 (5.6%) cases sibling (brother or sister) was heads of the family, in 40 (4%) cases mother was head of the family, in 200 (20%) cases policyholders themselves were head of their family and only in 96 (9.6%) cases spouse of the policyholder was head of the family.
Table 5.7: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of occupations of the policyholders (N =1000)
Occupation Frequency Percent
Agriculture 72 7.2%
Self Employed-Shop 109 10.9%
Self Employed-Other 80 8.0%
Business Owner 125 12.5%
Service Professionals Pvt. 302 30.2%
Govt. Employees 208 20.8%
Dependent 56 5.6%
Retired from Pvt. Job 8 .8%
Retired from Govt. Job 40 4.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
The rapid social and economic development taking place in the country is more apparent in the economic activities of policyholder in insurance. With growth in urbanization large number of policyholders entering in the job market. As shown in the table 5.7 policyholders were surveyed from different occupational backgrounds. Seventy two (7.2%) policyholders were farmers, 109 (10.9%) policyholders were shop owners, 80 (8.0%) policyholders were self employed, 125 (12.5%) policyholders were business owner, 302 (30.2%) policyholders were serving private sector, 208 (20.8%) were
government employees in the sample size.
TABLE 5.8: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of educational qualifications of the policyholders (N =1000)
Educational Qualifications Frequency Percent
Below 10th 64 6.4%
10th Pass 61 6.1%
12th Pass 152 15.2%
Graduate 301 30.1%
Diploma Holder 128 12.8%
Post Graduate 230 23.0%
Professional 64 6.4%
Total 1000 100.0%
Education is a means to provide systematic instruction to make the policyholders intellectually superior and rational. Spread of education certainly leads to liberal attitude, information sharing, social and legal reforms and a desire to acquire high standard of living. Education therefore is determining a factor which is likely to bring about a change for the better in the society and to enhance the status of policyholder awareness. As shown in the table 5.8 policyholders were from different educational backgrounds. In the sample surveyed 64 (6.4%) policyholders were studied up to below tenth standard, 61 (6.1%) policyholders were studied up to tenth standard, 152 (15.2%) policyholders were studied up to twelfth standard. It was also observed that out of 1000 only 301 (30.1%) policyholders were graduates, 128 (12.8%)
policyholders were diploma holders, 230 (23%) policyholders were post graduates and 64 (6.4%) policyholders were professionally qualified. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of graduate policyholders.
TABLE 5.9: Characteristics of the policyholders on the basis of Life cycle stage (N =1000)
Personal Status (Life-cycle- stage) Frequency Percent
Single(Unmarried) 270 27.0%
Married, no child 96 9.6%
Married, child/Children below 5 years 112 11.2%
Married, children 5-18 years 266 26.6%
Married, Children in College 72 7.2%
Married, living with working children 112 11.2%
Separated, without children 8 .8%
Married, child/children separated 24 2.4%
Separated, living with children 8 .8%
Widow/widower and Single 24 2.4%
Remarried 8 .8%
Total 1000 100.0%
With the tremendous economic and social changes, transformation in attitude and beliefs, increased geographical mobility in search of income, wealth, occupation,
family. Big family or extended family is one which has more than two adults and more than three children. As shown in the table 5.9 in the sample surveyed 270 (27%) policyholders were unmarried, 96 (9.6%) policyholders were married and had no child, 112 (11.2%) policyholders were married and had child/children below 5 years of age, 266 (26.6%) policyholders were married and had child/children between 5-18 years of age, 72 (7.2%) policyholders were married and had college going child/children, 112 (11.2%) policyholders had working child/children, 8 (0.8%) policyholders were not living with their child/children, 24 (2.4%) policyholders were widow or widower and only 8 (0.8%) policyholders were remarried. The graph presented above also represents that there was a sound number of singles and married policyholders who had children between 5-18 years.
TABLE 5.10: Number of children in the family of policyholder (N =1000) No of children Frequency Percent
Nil 381 38.1%
1 219 21.9%
2 240 24.0%
3 128 12.8%
4 or more 32 3.2%
Total 1000 100.0%
The family is defined as two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption who resides together. In a more dynamic sense individual who constitute a family might be described as members of the most basis social group who live together and interact to satisfy their personal and mutual needs. Family is a primary group
exercising considerable influence on policyholder behaviour. The table 5.10 shows that 381(38.1%) policyholders had no child, 219 (21.9%) policyholders had single child, 240 (24%) policyholders had two children, 128 (12.8%) policyholders had three children and only 32 (3.2%) policyholders had four or more children. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders who had no child in their family followed by number of policyholders who had two children in their family.
TABLE 5.11: Earning members in family of policyholder (N =1000) Earning Members Frequency Percent
1 269 26.9%
2 571 57.1%
3 120 12.0%
4 or more 40 4.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
Family may be extended, joint or nuclear. Policyholder behaviour researches have revealed that in every family there is role specialisation for example ‘Karta’ in joint family decides the household products to be bought, in extended family the decider may be one of the grand parent and in nuclear it is the housewife who has a more
family and only 40 (4.0%) policyholders had four or more earning members in their family. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders who had 2 earning members in their family.
TABLE 5.12: Religion of policyholders (N =1000)
Religion Frequency Percent
Hindu 896 89.6%
Muslim 24 2.4%
Sikh 48 4.8%
Christian 16 1.6%
Others 16 1.6%
Total 1000 100.0%
The table 5.12 shows that the policyholders were surveyed from different religions, 896 (89.6%) policyholders were Hindus, 24 (2.4%) policyholders were Muslims, 48 (4.8%) policyholders were Sikhs, 16 (1.6%) were Christians and 16 (1.6%) were from other religions not listed in the questionnaire. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of Hindu policyholders followed by Sikhs and Muslims.
TABLE 5.13: Home ownership of policyholders (N =1000)
Home ownership Frequency Percent
Yes 771 77.1%
No 229 22.9%
Total 1000 100.0%
The table 5.13 shows that 771 (77.1%) policyholders had home ownership whereas 229 (22.9%) policyholders had no home ownership. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of home owners in the sample size.
TABLE 5.14: Type of vehicle policyholders posses (N =1000)
Type of Vehicle Frequency Percent
Heavy Motor Vehicle 117 11.7%
Light Motor Vehicle 547 54.7%
Motor Cycle/Scooter geared 192 19.2%
Scooter non-geared 40 4.0%
None 104 10.4%
Total 1000 100.0%
The table 5.14 shows that in the sample surveyed 117 (11.7%) policyholders had heavy motor vehicle, 547 (54.7%) had light motor vehicle, 192 (19.2%) policyholders had geared motor cycle/scooter, 40 (4%) had non-geared scooter whereas only 104 (10.4%) policyholders had no vehicle. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders those who posses light motor vehicle.
TABLE 5.15: Type of back accounts policyholders operates (N =1000)
Type of Bank Account Frequency
Percent
Personal 643 64.3%
Joint 96 9.6%
Both 261 26.1%
Total 1000 100.0%
The table 5.15 shows that 643 (64.3%) policyholders were operating personal bank account, 96 (9.6%) had joint account whereas 261 (26.1%) were operating both joint as well as personal accounts. The graph also represents that there was a fair percentage of policyholders who were operating personal account.
TABLE 5.16: Property of policyholders (N =1000) Own Property (Agriculture/
Commercial land) Frequency
Percent
Yes 640 64.0%
No 360 36.0%
Total 1000 100.0%
The table 5.16 shows that 640 (64%) policyholders were property owner (agriculture or commercial) whereas 360 (36%) policyholders were not owner of any kind of property.
TABLE 5.17: Card policyholders operates (N =1000)
Type of credit/debit card Frequency Percent
Credit Card 189 18.9%
Debit Card/ATM 739 73.9%
Kisan Credit Card 24 2.4%
Master/Visa card 48 4.8%
Total 1000 100.0%
(4.8%) were master/visa card holders.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RURAL AND URBAN POLICYHOLDERS TABLE 5.18: Gender and Region (N =1000)
Gender
Gender Regionality
Total
Rural Urban
Male 407 363 770
Female 93 137 230
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.18 shows that the number of male policyholders was more in rural (407) as well as urban areas (363) as compare to female policyholders in rural (93) and urban areas (137).
TABLE 5.19: Age Group and Region (N =1000) Age Group
Age Group Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Below 25 years 146 49 195
25-34 years 162 147 309
35-44 years 92 100 192
45-54 years 12 84 96
55-64 years 69 107 176
64 or Above 19 13 32
Total 500 500 1000
The table-5.19 shows that number of young policyholders was more in rural (below 25 years 146, below 35 years was 162) as well as in urban area (below 25 years was 49 and below 35 was 147), followed by the policyholders of 55 to 64 years of age (69 in rural and 107 in urban area)There was a fare participation of each age group in the sample.
TABLE 5.20: Income Group and Region (N =1000) Income Group (Annual)
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Less than 1 Lakh 59 29 88
1 to 1.5 Lakh 78 31 109
1.5 to 2.5 Lakh 91 93 184
2.5 to 5 Lakh 176 99 275
5 to 10 Lakh 74 190 264
10 Lakh and above 22 58 80
Total 500 500 1000
the sample surveyed 59 rural and 29 urban policyholders were earning less than ` 1 lakh, 78 rural and 31 urban policyholders were earning between ` 1 – 1.5 lakh, 91 rural and 93 urban policyholders were earning between ` 1.5 to 2.5 lakh, 176 rural and 99 urban policyholders were earning between ` 2.5 to 5 lakh, 74 rural and 190 urban policyholders were earning between ` 5 to 10 lakh and 22 rural and 58 urban policyholders were earning above ` 10 lakh per annum.
TABLE 5.21: Owner’s Wealth and Region (N =1000) Owner's Wealth in family
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Below 10 Lakh 194 89 283
10-50 Lakh 191 134 325
50 Lakh-1 Crore 58 134 192
1-5 Crore 13 59 72
5-10 Crore 27 77 104
More Than 10 Crore 17 7 24
Total 500 500 1000
It was observed on the basis of owners wealth of a household that in the sample surveyed owners of 194 rural and 89 urban policyholders had a wealth below 10 lakhs,191 rural and 31 urban policyholders had wealth between ` 10 – 50 lakhs
followed by 58 rural policyholders and 134 urban policyholders had the wealth between ` 50 to 1 Crore as shown in table 5.21.
TABLE 5.22: Head of Family and Region (N =1000) Owner/head of your family
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Grand Father 57 12 69
Father 255 284 539
Brother/Sister 22 34 56
Mother 24 16 40
You 114 86 200
Spouse 28 68 96
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.22 shows that in case of 57 rural and 12 urban policyholders head of the family was Grand Father where as in case of 255 rural policyholders and 284 urban policyholders father was the head of family. It was also observed in case of 114 rural and 86 urban policyholders were the head in their families.
TABLE 5.23: Occupation and Region (N =1000) Occupation
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Agriculture 55 17 72
Self Employed-Shop 77 32 109
Self Employed-Other 44 36 80
Business Owner 42 83 125
Service Professionals Pvt. 121 181 302
Govt. Employees 93 115 208
Dependent 41 15 56
Retired from Pvt. Job 1 7 8
Retired from Govt. Job 26 14 40
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.23 shows that there were a fair percentage of service professionals (121 in rural and 181 urban areas), government employees (93 rural and 115 urban policyholders) followed by self-employed and farmers in the sample surveyed.
TABLE 5.24: Educational Qualifications and Region (N =1000) Educational Qualifications
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Below 10th 48 16 64
10th Pass 49 12 61
12th Pass 114 38 152
Graduate 131 170 301
Diploma Holder 48 80 128
Post Graduate 90 140 230
Professional 20 44 64
Total 500 500 1000
The information in the table 5.24 reveals that 48 rural and 16 urban policyholders were not educated up to 10th standard, 49 rural and 12 urban policyholders were studied up to 10th standard, 114 rural and 38 urban policyholders were educated up to 12th standard. It was also observed that 131 rural and 170 urban policyholders were
TABLE 5.25: Personal Status (Life-stage) and Region (N =1000) Personal Status of the policyholders
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Single (Unmarried) 181 89 270
Married, no child 33 63 96
Married, child/Children below
5 years 68 44 112
Married, children 5-18 years 119 147 266
Married, Children in College 33 39 72
Married, living with working children 28 84 112
Separated, without children 1 7 8
Married, child/children separated 11 13 24
Separated, living with children 8 0 8
Widow/widower and Single 18 6 24
Remarried 0 8 8
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.25 make clear that there was 181 rural and 89 urban policyholders were unmarried, 33 rural and 63 policyholders were married without children, 68 rural and 44 urban policyholders were married and living with children. It was also observed
13 urban policyholders were married and their children were not living with them, 8 rural policyholders were separated and living with their children, 18 rural and 6 urban policyholders were widow/widowers. There were a fair percentage of married policyholders in urban 147 and rural 119 areas that had children aged between 5-18 years of age.
TABLE 5.26: Earning Members in Family and Region (N =1000) Earning Members in family
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
1 122 147 269
2 323 248 571
3 29 91 120
4 or more 26 14 40
Total 500 500 1000
three earning members in their family followed by 26 rural and 14 urban policyholders had four or more earning members in their family.
TABLE 5.27: Number of Children and Region (N =1000) Number of Children
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Nil 212 169 381
1 122 97 219
2 74 166 240
3 68 60 128
4 or more 24 8 32
Total 500 500 1000
The information in the table 5.27 reveals that 212 rural and 169 urban policyholders had no child, 122 rural and 97 urban policyholders had one child, 74 rural and 166 urban policyholders has two children, 68 rural and 60 urban policyholders had three children and 24 rural and 8 urban policyholders had four or more children in their family.
TABLE 5.28: Religion and Region (N =1000) Religion of the policyholders
Regionality
Total
Rural Urban
Hindu 465 431 896
Muslim 9 15 24
Sikh 9 39 48
Christian 9 7 16
Others 8 8 16
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.28 shows that there were 465 rural and 431 urban policyholders were Hindus, 9 rural and 15 urban policyholders were Muslims, 9 rural and 39 policyholders were Sikhs, 9 rural and 7 urban policyholders were Christians and 8
TABLE 5.29: Home Ownership and Region (N =1000) Home Ownership
Regionality
Total
Rural Urban
Yes 372 399 771
No 128 101 229
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.29 shows 372 rural and 399 urban policyholders had home ownership whereas 128 rural and 101 urban policyholders do not have their own homes.
TABLE 5.30: Type of Vehicle and Region (N =1000) Type of Vehicle
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Heavy Motor Vehicle 48 69 117
Light Motor Vehicle 215 332 547
Motor Cycle/Scooter geared 141 51 192
Scooter non-geared 24 16 40
None 72 32 104
Total 500 500 1000
The information in the table 5.30 reveals that 48 rural and 69 urban policyholders were owner of heavy motor vehicle, 215 rural and 332 urban policyholders were owner of light motor vehicle, 141 rural and 51 urban policyholders had geared two wheeler, 24 rural and 16 urban policyholders had non-geared two wheeler and only 72 rural and 32 urban policyholders were not owner of any vehicle.
TABLE 5.31: Type of Bank Account and Region (N =1000) Type of bank account
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Personal 371 272 643
Joint 36 60 96
Both 93 168 261
Total 500 500 1000
The information in the table 5.31 reveals that 48 rural and 69 urban policyholders were owner of heavy motor vehicle, 215 rural and 332 urban policyholders were owner of light motor vehicle, 141 rural and 51 urban policyholders had geared two wheeler, 24 rural and 16 urban policyholders had non-geared two wheeler and only 72 rural and 32 urban policyholders were not owner of any vehicle.
TABLE 5.32: Property Ownership and Region (N =1000) Own property(agriculture/commercial/land) and Regionality
Regionality Total Rural Urban
Yes 316 324 640
No 184 176 360
Total 500 500 1000
The table 5.32 shows 316 rural and 324 urban policyholders were owner of property whereas 184 rural and 174 urban policyholders do not own property.
TABLE 5.33: Type of Card and Region (N =1000) Type of credit/debit
Regionality
Total Rural Urban
Credit Card 77 112 189
Debit Card/ATM 383 356 739
Kisan Credit Card 16 8 24
Master/Visa card 24 24 48
Total 500 500 1000
The information in the table 5.33 reveals that 77 rural and 112 urban policyholders were owner of credit cards, 383 rural and 356 urban policyholders were owner of debit cards/ATMs, 16 rural and 8 urban policyholders were owner of kisan credit cards whereas 24 rural and 24 urban policyholders were owner of master visa cards.
TABLE 5.34: Insured Amount and Region (N =1000)
Approximate amount insured by the policyholders in life insurance policy/policies
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1-3 Lakh 416 83.2 363 72.6
The information in the table 5.34 reveals that 83.2 percent rural and 72.6 percent urban policyholders insured approximately ` 1 to 3 laks of, 13 percent rural and 20 percent urban policyholders insured ` 4 to 7 laks and 3.8 rural and 8.4 percent urban policyholders insured more than ` 7 laks.
PREFERENCES OF INSURANCE POLICIES AND REGION
The information collected from the respondent revealed that policyholders posses more than one policy of same company of different companies. Therefore, the data related to types of insurance plan chosen by policy holders and detail of the insurer provided below:
TABLE 5.35: Whole Life Scheme
Whole Life Scheme
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 70 14.0 82 16.4
No 430 86.0 418 83.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.35 reveals that only 14 percent rural and 16.4 percent urban policyholders had whole life insurance policy. The whole life policies were not popular among rural and urban policyholders.
TABLE 5.36: Endowment Scheme
Endowment Scheme
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 339 67.8 269 53.8
No 161 32.2 231 46.2
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.36 reveals that 67.8 percent rural and 53.8 percent urban policyholders had endowment life insurance scheme. Therefore it is stated that endowment schemes were quite popular among rural and urban policyholders.
TABLE 5.37: Term Insurance Plan
Term Insurance Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 60 12.0 52 10.4
The information in the table 5.37 reveals that only 12 percent rural and 10.4 percent urban policyholders had Term insurance plans. Term insurance plans were not popular among rural and urban policyholders.
TABLE 5.38: Periodic Money Back Plan Periodic Money Back Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 34 6.8 14 2.8
No 466 93.2 486 97.2
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.38 reveals that only 6.8 percent rural and 2.8 percent urban policyholders had periodic money back plan. Periodic money bank plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.39: Medical Benefits Linked Insurance Medical Benefits Linked Insurance
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 38 7.6 82 16.4
No 462 92.4 418 83.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.39 reveals that only 7.6 percent rural and 16.4 percent urban policyholders had medical benefit linked insurance. Medical benefit linked insurance plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.40: Children Plan Children Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 105 21.0 84 16.8
No 395 79.0 416 83.2
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.40 reveals that only 21 percent rural and 16.8 percent urban policyholders had children plan. Children plan were opted by rural and urban policyholders but were not popular among sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.41: Joint Life Plan Joint Life Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 61 12.2 91 18.2
No 439 87.8 409 81.8
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.41 reveals that only 12.2 percent rural and 18.2 percent urban policyholders had whole life insurance policy. The joint life plan were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.42: Capital Market Limited Plan Capital Market Limited Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 18 3.6 6 1.2
No 482 96.4 494 98.8
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.42 reveals that only 3.6 percent rural and 1.2 percent urban policyholders had capital market linked plan. Capital market linked plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.43: Group Schemes Group Schemes
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 24 4.8 - -
No 476 95.2 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.43 reveals that only 4.8 percent rural policyholders had group life insurance schemes. Group schemes were least preferred by the sample policyholders in rural as well as urban segment.
TABLE 5.44: Social Security Social Security
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 16 3.2 - -
No 484 96.8 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.44 reveals that only 3.2 percent rural policyholders had social security schemes. Social security plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.45: Education Plan Education Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 17 3.4 7 1.4
No 483 96.6 493 98.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.45 reveals that only 3.6 percent rural and 1.2 percent urban policyholders had educational plan. Educational plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.46: Pension Plan Pension Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 26 5.2 38 7.6
No 474 94.8 462 92.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.46 reveals that only 5.2 percent rural and 7.6 percent urban policyholders had pension plan. Pension plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders in rural and urban segments.
TABLE 5.47: Growth Plan Growth Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 37 7.4 35 7.0
No 463 92.6 465 93.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.47 reveals that only 7.4 percent rural and 7 percent urban policyholders had capital market linked plan. Growth plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.48: Unit Linked Plan Unit Linked Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 68 13.6 100 20.0
The information in the table 5.48 reveals that only 13.6 percent rural and 20 percent urban policyholders had unit linked plan. Unit linked plans were less poplar among the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.49: Systematic Investment Plan Systematic Investment Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 24 4.8 8 1.6
No 476 95.2 492 98.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.49 reveals that only 4.8 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders had systematic investment plan. Systematic investment plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.50: Individual Plan
Individual Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 306 61.2 142 28.4
No 194 38.8 358 71.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.50 reveals that only 61.2 percent rural and 28.4 percent urban policyholders had individual plan. Individual plans were quite popular among the rural policyholders.
TABLE 5.51: Money Back Plan
Money Back Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 144 28.8 56 11.2
The information in the table 5.51 reveals that only 28.8 percent rural and 11.2 percent urban policyholders had capital money back plan. Money back plans were also less preferred by the sample policyholders in both the segments.
TABLE 5.52: Special Plan Special Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 16 3.2 - -
No 484 96.8 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.52 reveals that only 3.2 percent rural policyholders had special plan. Special plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.53: Health Plan Health Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 25 5.0 23 4.6
No 475 95.0 477 95.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.53 reveals that only 5 percent rural and 4.6 percent urban policyholders had health plan. Health plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders in rural and urban segments.
TABLE 5.54: Multiplier Plan Multiplier Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 16 3.2 8 1.6
The information in the table 5.54 reveals that only 3.2 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders had Multiplier plan. Multiplier plans were least preferred by the sample policyholders.
TABLE 5.55: Plan with Flexible Investment Option Plan with Flexible Investment Option
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 16 3.2 8 1.6
No 484 96.8 492 98.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.55 reveals that only 3.2 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders had plan with flexible investment option. Plans with flexible investment option were least preferred by the sample policyholders in both the segments.
TABLE 5.56: Security Security
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 384 76.8 304 60.8
No 116 23.2 196 39.2
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.56 reveals that only 76.8 percent rural and 60.8 percent urban policyholder’s posses a policy with security. Social security is one of the
TABLE 5.57: Security and Critical Pension Security and critical pension
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 60 12.0 100 20.0
No 440 88.0 400 80.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.57 reveals that only 12 percent rural and 20 percent urban policyholders had a policy with security and critical pension plan features.
TABLE 5.58: Systematic Investment Plan Systematic Investment Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 15 3.0 65 13.0
No 485 97.0 435 87.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.58 reveals that only 3 percent rural and 13 percent urban policyholders opted for a policy with systematic investment plan.
TABLE 5.59: Saving Plan Saving Plan
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 366 73.2 242 48.4
No 134 26.8 258 51.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
TABLE 5.60: Risk Disability Risk Disability
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 16 3.2 8 1.6
No 484 96.8 492 98.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.60 reveals that only 3.2 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders preferred a policy with risk disability plan.
TABLE 5.61: Critical Plan Critical Pension
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 15 3.0 49 9.8
No 485 97.0 451 90.2
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.61 reveals that only 3 percent rural and 9.8 percent urban policyholders chosen life insurance with critical pension plan.
TABLE 5.62: Security Illness Security Illness
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 9 1.8 31 6.2
No 491 98.2 469 93.8
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.62 reveals that only 1.8 percent rural and 6.2 percent urban policyholders preferred a policy with security illness plan.
TABLE 5.63: Annuity Insurance Annuity Insurance
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 8 1.6
The information in the table 5.63 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders chosen a policy with annuity schemes.
TABLE 5.64: Flexibility Investment Portfolio Flexible Investment Portfolio
Rural Urban
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 32 6.4
No 492 98.4 468 93.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.64 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural and 6.4 percent urban policyholders opted for life insurance with flexible investment portfolio plan.
TABLE 5.65: Payer’s Benefit Payer's Benefit
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 8 1.6
No 492 98.4 492 98.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.65 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural and 1.6 percent urban policyholders opted for life insurance with payer’s benefit plan.
TABLE 5.66: Risk Coverage Risk Coverage
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 341 68.2 251 50.2
No 159 31.8 249 49.8
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.66 reveals that only 68.2 percent rural and 50.2 percent urban policyholders favored life insurance with maximum risk coverage plan.
TABLE 5.67: Investment in Equity Funds Investment in equity funds
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 40 8.0
No 492 98.4 460 92.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.67 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural and 8 percent urban buyer preferred a policy where investment in equity funds is offered to the policyholders.
TABLE 5.68: Investment in Growth Funds
`
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 16 3.2
No 492 98.4 484 96.8
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.68 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural and 3.2 percent urban policyholders had preferred a policy with growth funds.
TABLE 5.69: Investment in Debts Funds Investment in debts funds
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 13 2.6 27 5.4
No 487 97.4 473 94.6
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.69 reveals that only 2.6 percent rural and 5.4 percent urban policyholders opted for a policy with debt funds.
TABLE 5.70: Investment in Liquid Funds Investment in liquid funds
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 - -
No 492 98.4 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.70 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural policyholders preferred policy where money is invested in liquid funds.
TABLE 5.71: Maturity Safety Switch Options Maturity Safety Switch Options
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 218 43.6 123 24.6
No 282 56.4 377 75.4
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.71 reveals that only 43.6 percent rural and 24.6 percent urban policyholders opted for life insurance with maturity safety switch options.
TABLE 5.72: Auto Fund Rebalancing
Auto Fund Rebalancing
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 - -
No 492 98.4 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.72 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural policyholders opted for a life insurance policy where the money is invested in auto fund rebalancing scheme.
TABLE 5.73: Milestone Withdrawals Milestone Withdrawals
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 8 1.6 - -
No 492 98.4 500 100.0
Total 500 100.0 500 100.0
The information in the table 5.73 reveals that only 1.6 percent rural policyholders
