An Empirical Study on the Buying Motives of an Insurance Policy holder and

the impact of demography on the Insurance buying decision process

Chandan Kumar Tripathy

ABSTRACT

Life insurance as a product is always one of the toughest to sell. Though one can argue about
its benefits in the long term, in this modern materialistic world, customers are getting very
cautious about their investments and the returns out of it. In this study, an attempt was made
to make the customers aware of various aspects of a life insurance product and their
respective opinions regarding the policy. Various demographic characteristics of the policy
holders e.g. age, gender, income, education, occupation etc. and their impact on the
customers perceptions regarding the product were explored. The various aspects involved in
a life insurance product as per their importance to the policy holders can be outlined as: A
tax saving plan; a saving scheme with good return; financial security for the family; Risk
coverage; Save for Pension ( to cover the risk of living too long); and, to make black money
in to white.

The study focused on two life insurers: LIC and Aegon Religare Life Insurance (ARLI )
operating in Odisha. A sample size of 215 life insurance customers was planned. The data
was collected through primary sources through a structured questionnaire. Data was
analyzed using SPSS 19.0 and MS Excel - 2010. ANOVA and t-Test were used to examine the
differences among various groups of respondents. Though the study was handicapped by
limited sample size (both geographical as well as periodical), it can be amplified as per the
national scenario with some specific modifications. This study will help the insurance
companies and the regulators in developing a better life insurance product.

Keywords: Life Insurance, Buying Motives of a Policy holder, impact of demography,

Insurance buying process.

Research Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Utkal University, Managing

Director, Excellence India, email id : [email protected]
INTRODUCTION

Once the insurance sector was opened for foreign players in 2001, the Indian life insurance
industry has undergone two distinct phases -- the 1st one was a period of high annual growth
of around 31 percent from new business premium from the period 2001to 2010) and the 2 nd
phase saw a stagnant annual growth rate of around 2 percent in new business premium
between 2010 - 2012). During the period 2001to 2010, there has been increase in penetration
(from 2.30 percent in FY 2001 to 3.45 percent in FY 2012). There was a spurt in lives
covered, substantial growth through agency, bancassurance, brokers, direct, corporate agency
and others. This period also witnessed increased competition among the existing 23 private
players in FY12.

Today the Indian life insurance sector is going through a slow growth phase and there is a big
challenge of profitability. The insurance sector players are struggling to achieve profitability
in the face of high operating losses primarily on account of intermediaries and its business
models. The private life insurers have been suffering continuous.

REVIEW OF SOME EARLIER STUDIES:

Athma and Kumar (2007) in their empirical based study conducted on 200 sample size
comprising of both rural and urban market analyzed the various product and non-product
related factors and their impact on life insurance purchase decision-making. Based on the
survey analysis; urban market is more influenced with product based factors like risk
coverage, tax benefits, return etc. Whereas rural population is influenced with non-product
related factors such as: credibility of agent, companys reputation, trust, customer services.
Company goodwill and money back guarantee attracts many people for life insurance.

Tripathi (2008) conducted a research based study on buying pattern in the insurance industry
with a special focus on ARLI insurance. The various segments of the markets divided in
terms of insurance needs, age groups, satisfaction levels etc were taken into account to know
the customer perception and expectation from private insurers.

Mantise and Farmer (1968) analyzed that marriages, births, personal income, population
size, relative Price index, and employment could affect the insurance purchase. Many studies
have been conducted to estimate the Demand for insurance or to test risk-aversion. Anderson
and Nevin (1975) in the study looked at the life insurance purchasing behaviour of Young
newly married couples. The study suggested that the wife and the insurance agent are playing
an Influential role in the type of insurance purchased by young married households.

Campbell (1980) found that not only does a portion of currently accumulated household
wealth act as a Substitute for insurance; there is also a portion of future human capital that
households should self-insure. Chen et al. (2001) revealed that insurance demand of baby
boomer generation is quite different from that of previous generations using cohort analysis.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
The sole research question (to be answered) in this study was about the numerous perceptions
of a life insurance product (by various segments of the customers) and their relative
importance in buying the product. In this study, the customers perceptions/ preferences of the
various aspects related with a life insurance product are going to be examined. The various
aspects involved in a life insurance product as per their importance to the policy holders can
be outlined as: A tax saving plan, a saving scheme with good return, financial security for the
family, Risk coverage, Save for green patch (Pension), to cover the risk of
living too long and to make black money to white money.

METHODOLOGY:
These factors already discussed above were developed from the reviews of related literatures
(wherever available) / were introduced by the researchers for the first time. These elements
were put through the following statements (as the items in the questionnaire):

I bought this life insurance product, because:

A1: This is a tax saving plan
A2: This is a saving scheme with good return
A3: This is a financial security for the family
A4: This provides risk coverage
A5: This can be used as a saving for Pension, to cover the risk of living too long.
A6: This can be used to convert black money to white money

Formulating Null Hypotheses

As per the objectives set earlier, the following hypotheses were formulated to be tested in this
study:
H01:Age has no significant impact on the policy holders perceptions of the various aspects
of a life insurance policy.
H02: Both male and female customers possess the same opinion about the importance of the
various aspects of a life insurance product.
H03: Marital status has no significant impact on the policy holders perceptions of various
aspects of a life insurance product.
H04: Level of education has no significant affect on the customers perceptions of various
aspects of a life insurance product.
H05: Income level does not affect the customers opinions about various aspects of a life
insurance product.
H06: Type of occupation has no significant impact on the customers opinions about various
aspects of a life insurance product.
H07: There is no significant difference between urban and rural customers perceptions
regarding the importance of the life insurance product.

Further, based on these set hypotheses, the respective sub-hypotheses were developed for
each demographic variables and their specific relationship with the various aspects involved
with a life insurance product from the customers point of view.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study has focussed more on descriptive type of research. Further, we have chosen survey
strategy because it seeks the opinion of a population (in our case, the customers or policy
holders of LIC and ARLI) about a specific subject matter. In this type of method in which the
opinions of the sample or population is sought by the researcher, usually with a more
objective research instrument, say a structured questionnaire. The Universe for this study
includes the 24 Life Insurance Companies of India. The target population for the study
comprises: Two Life Insurance Companies (ARLI & LIC) in Bhubaneswar region. Customer
database consists of 3 databases: Customer database of the Life Insurance Company who
have been customers for at least 3 years or more; Customer database of the Life Insurance
Company who had taken the policy but discontinued before 3 years; finally prospective
customer database of the life insurance company.

A convenient sampling technique, which is a non-probabilistic sampling technique, was used

to select the respondents for three reasons. First the customers are scattered all over Odisha,
which makes it very difficult to contact each of them individually. Again, it is difficult getting
the exact number of customers for each of the insurance companies in Odisha which is
required for the use of any random sampling technique. Third, the researchers are working
within the demands of an academic schedule so very limited time and resources to conduct
the study. The study focuses on LIC and ARLI insurance companies operating in Odisha that
offer Life Insurance services. As a result of limited data on the total population, cost and time
constraints, a convenient sample size of 215 was planned. The data was collected through
primary sources: Structured Questionnaire was designed to take inputs from the respondents.

Interview method was also used for collecting primary data. The Questionnaire items were
adopted from previous studies. The questions were modified to suit the insurance industry
context in Odisha, and sought the respondents opinions on the various aspects of life
insurance products sold by the LIC and ARLI. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.0 and MS Excel - 2010. For the respondents,
instructions were also included, and each statement was accompanied by a five-point rating
ranging from "least important = 5" to "most important = 1."

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Churchill (1979) has recommended coefficient to check the internal consistency of items
placed under a given factor with Heir et al (2006) suggesting the value to be 0.6 and
above. For all the policy holders, cronbachs was found to be 0.726 which is more than 0.6.
Again, all the items under the scale were found to be having a loading of more than 0.6. The
details of the sample and their demographic characteristics are explained in detail in the
table-1.
Table-1: (Demographic details of the respondents)

Demographic Details of LIC and ARLI Customers

LIC ARLI Total
Coun Coun Coun
t Column % t Column % t Column %
Gender Male 133 75.6% 29 74.4% 162 75.3%
Female 43 24.4% 10 25.6% 53 24.7%
Total 176 100.0% 39 100.0% 215 100.0%
Educational
Qualification Secondary 31 17.6% 1 2.6% 32 14.9%
Senior Secondary 37 21.0% 9 23.1% 46 21.4%
Graduate 97 55.1% 22 56.4% 119 55.3%
Post Graduate 11 6.3% 7 17.9% 18 8.4%
Professional 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 176 100.0% 39 100.0% 215 100.0%
Age Upto 20 yrs 9 5.1% 7 17.9% 16 7.4%
21-40 114 64.8% 30 76.9% 144 67.0%
41-60 44 25.0% 2 5.1% 46 21.4%
Above 60 9 5.1% 0 0.0% 9 4.2%
Total 176 100.0% 39 100.0% 215 100.0%
Occupation Govt.Employee 134 76.1% 13 33.3% 147 68.4%
Pvt.Employee 33 18.8% 24 61.5% 57 26.5%
Businessman 4 2.3% 0 0.0% 4 1.9%
Student 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 1 0.5%
Any Other 4 2.3% 2 5.1% 6 2.8%
Total 176 100% 39 100% 215 100%
Marital
Status Unmarried 146 83.0% 24 61.5% 170 79.1%
Married 24 13.6% 11 28.2% 35 16.3%
Divorced 6 3.4% 0 0.0% 6 2.8%
Widow 0 0.0% 4 10.3% 4 1.9%
Total 176 100% 39 100% 215 100%
Income Upto Rs.15000 11 6.3% 8 20.5% 19 8.8%
15001-30000 115 65.3% 17 43.6% 132 61.4%
30001-45000 45 25.6% 3 7.7% 48 22.3%
45001-60000 0 0.0% 4 10.3% 4 1.9%
Above 60001 5 2.8% 7 17.9% 12 5.6%
Total 176 100.0% 39 100.0% 215 100.0%
Place Rural 48 27.3% 10 25.6% 58 27.0%
Urban 128 72.7% 29 74.4% 157 73.0%
Total 176 100.0% 39 100.0% 215 100%
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
When the opinions of all the 215 life insurance policy holders were taken in to consideration,
a huge chunk of them bought the life insurance product as a tool for providing financial
security to the family. The policy holders ranked the financial security aspect of the life
insurance product as numero uno (1.86) followed by the saving scheme aspect (2.52). But,
the features such as Save for green patch (Pension), to cover the risk of living too long and
to convert black money into white money were out rightly rejected by the customers as a
reason to buy a life insurance policy. (See table-2).

Table-2: Various aspects of a life insurance product as seen by the policy holders

N Mini Max Mean Rank

A tax saving plan 215 1 5 2.76 3
A saving scheme with good returns 215 1 5 2.52 2
A financial Security for the family 215 1 5 1.86 1
Risk coverage 215 1 5 2.92 4
Saving for Pension 215 1 5 4.40 5
To convert black money into white money 215 1 5 4.68 6
Valid N (list wise) 215
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

After understanding the overall perceptions of the policy holders regarding the importance of
various aspects of life insurance product, let us analyse further regarding the impact of the
various demographic and socio economic characteristics of the customers on their respective
perceptions of the outlined features of the life
insurance policy.

The age-wise analysis for the different aspects of the life insurance product was carried out
with comparing their means and standard deviations. To examine any significant difference
among the various groups, One way ANOVA test was carried out. From the table 3, it can be
seen that the mean values with their standard deviations differ heavily from each other with
respect to the four age categories. To verify the significance of the differences, F-value was
calculated for each variable with the significance level being kept at 0.05. For all the
variables, the values of significance level for the F-test were found to be less than 0.05.
Therefore, we can say that there is a significant difference between the perceptions of policy
holders of various age categories regarding the policy features. Hence, null hypothesis H01
for all the aspects/ features, i.e. A1-A6 is rejected which implies that age has a huge effect on
the opinions of the policy holders regarding all the aspects of the policy.

Table-3: One-Way ANOVA for Age-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life Insurance
Products
VARIABLES AGE F-VALUE SIGN-
LEVEL
UPTO 20 YRS 21-40 YRS 41-6O YRS ABOVE 60 YRS
N=16 N=144 N=46 N=9
MEA S.D. MEAN S.D MEAN S.D MEA S.D
N N
A Tax Saving 3.13 1.204 2.78 1.197 2.83 1.081 1.44 0.527 4.486** 0.004
Plan
A Saving 2.25 0.931 2.63 1.069 2.46 1.187 1.56 0.527 3.349* 0.020
Scheme With
Good Return
Financial 2.38 0.957 1.65 0.897 2.13 1.067 3.00 .000 10.129** 0.000
Security For
The Family
Risk Coverage 3.63 1.455 2.61 1.307 3.41 1.166 4.00 .000 9.048** 0.000
Save For 4.96 0.254 4.38 1.354 4.41 1.543 3.33 1.581 3.044* 0.030
Pension
To Convert 4.25 1.880 4.80 1.355 4.22 1.812 3.22 2.635 7.470** 0.000
Black Money
To White
Money
* Significant at 5% LEVEL ** Significant at 1% LEVEL
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

The gender-wise analysis for the different aspects of the life insurance product was carried
out with comparing their means and standard deviations. To examine any significant
difference among the various groups, t - Test was carried out. From the table 4, it can be seen
that the mean values with their standard deviations differ from each other with respect to the
gender. To verify the significance of the differences, t value was calculated for each variable
with the significance level being kept at 0.05. For the aspects A1 and A3, the values of
significance level for the t-test were found to be less than 0.05 whereas for A2, A4, A5 and
A6, the values of significance level for the t-test were found to be more than 0.05. Hence,
null hypothesis H02 for the aspects/ features A1 and A3 is rejected whereas null hypothesis
H02 for the aspects/ features A2, A4, A5 and A6 is accepted.

Table 4: t-Test for Gender-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life Insurance Products

Variables Gender t-value Sign level

Male Female
N=162 N=53
Mea S.D. Mea S.D.
n n
A tax saving plan 2.62 1.231 3.17 0.914 -2.972** .003
A saving scheme with 2.44 1.086 2.75 1.072 -1.811 .072
good
A financial security for 1.98 .990 1.51 0.869 3.060** .002
the family
Risk coverage 2.90 1.363 2.98 1.248 -0.407 .684
Saving for pension 4.48 1.375 4.15 1.446 1.472 .143

To convert black money 4.87 1.655 4.91 0.598 -0.134 .894

* Significant at 5% LEVEL ** Significant at 1% LEVEL
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

Table-5: t-Test for Marital Status-Wise Analysis of the Policy Holders

VARIABLE MARITAL STATUS F- SIGN-
VALUE LEVEL
MARRIED UNMARRIED DIVORCED WIDOW/Widower

N=170 N=35 N=6 N=4

MEA S.D MEA S.D MEA S.D MEAN S.D
 N N N
A tax saving 2.75 1.19 2.57 1.17 4.00 .000 3.00 .000 2.614* .050
7 0
A savings 2.54 1.12 2.49 1.04 1.83 .408 3.00 .000 1.089 .355
scheme with 1 0
Financial 1.78 .921 2.06 1.23 3.00 .000 2.00 .000 3.752* .012
Security 5
Risk coverage 2.96 1.36 2.54 .980 4.50 1.22 2.00 .000 4.650** .004
9 5
Save for 4.35 1.42 4.60 1.00 5.00 0.00 2.00 .000 7.490** .000
Pension 4 6 0
To convert 4.95 .113 4.80 .997 2.67 .816 5.00 .000 6.444** .000
black money
to white
money
* Significant at 5% LEVEL ** Significant at 1% LEVEL
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

To examine any significant difference among the various groups as per their marital status,
One-way ANOVA test was carried out. (See Table-5) For all the aspects except A2, the
values of significance level for the F-test were found to be less than 0.05 whereas for A2, the
value of significance level for the F-test was found to be more than 0.05. Hence, null
hypothesis H03 for the aspects/ features A1, A3 A4, A5 and A6 is rejected whereas null
hypothesis H03 for A2 is accepted.

Table-6: One-Way ANOVA for Education-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life

Insurance Products
VARIABLE EDUCATION F- SIGN
SECONDARY SENIOR GRADUATE P.G & ABOVE VALUE LEVEL
SECONDARY
N=32 N=46 N=119 N=18
MEA S.D. MEA S.D. MEA S.D. MEA S.D.
N N N N
A Tax Saving 2.41 0.94 2.78 1.17 1.172 1.21 3.00 1.32 1.273 .285
Plan 6 2 6 8
A Saving 2.69 1.14 2.67 1.01 1.012 1.13 1.56 .784 .957 .414
Scheme With 8 2 8
Good Return
Financial 2.41 1.07 1.76 0.84 0.848 0.99 1.22 .428 6.470** .000
Security For 3 8 7
The Family
Risk Coverage 3.13 1.45 2.96 1.17 3.00 1.35 1.89 .900 4.171** .007
4 3 9
Saving For 4.28 1.50 4.57 1.08 4.49 1.37 3.56 1.79 2.703* .047
Pension 8 8 7 0
To Convert 4.25 2.39 4.92 0.10 4.90 .128 5.00 .000 7.276** .000
Black Money 6 7
to White
Money
*SIGNIFICANT AT 5% LEVEL
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

Let us study the impact of level of education on the perceptions of the policy holders
regarding the various aspects of the life insurance product. To examine any significant
difference among the various groups as per their educational qualifications, One-way
ANOVA test was carried out. (See Table-6) For all the aspects except A1 and A2, the values
of significance level for the F-test were found to be less than 0.05 whereas for A1 and A2, the
values of significance level for the F-test were found to be more than 0.05. Hence, null
hypothesis H04 for the aspects/ features, A3, A4, A5 and A6 is rejected whereas null
hypothesis H04 for A1 and A2 is accepted.
Similarly, as per the level of incomes of the policy holders, One-way ANOVA test was
carried out. (See Table-7) For all the aspects except A2 and A6, the values of significance
level for the F-test were found to be less than 0.05 whereas for A2 and A6, the values of
significance level for the F-test were found to be more than 0.05. Hence, null hypothesis H05
for the aspects/ features, A1, A3, A4 and A5 is rejected whereas null hypothesis H05 for A2
and A6 is accepted.

Table-7: One-Way ANOVA for Income-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life

Insurance products

Variables Income (In Rupees) F Sign

-valu -level
e
Upto 15001- 30001- 45001-60000 Above 60000
15000 30000 45000
N=19 N=132 N=47 N=4 N=12
Mea S.D ME S.D ME S.D MEA S.D MEA S.D
n AN AN N N
A Tax Saving 2.58 .838 2.95 1.26 2.55 .829 1.00 .000 2.50 1.38 3.568 .004
Plan 8 2 **
A Saving 2.53 1.07 2.55 1.03 2.49 1.26 1.00 .000 2.83 .835 1.873 .100
Scheme With 3 6 6
Good Returns
A Financial 2.26 .991 1.85 .961 2.00 1.04 1.00 .000 1.00 .000 3.802 .003
Security For The 3 **
Family
Risk Coverage 2.95 1.61 2.91 1.22 3.47 1.28 1.00 .000 1.33 .492 7.867 .000
5 0 3 **
Save For 4.47 1.34 4.42 1.40 4.85 .355 3.00 .000 2.83 1.80 5.553 0.000
Pension 9 4 1 **
To Convert 4.26 1.24 4.11 1.71 4.17 .685 5.00 .000 6.00 .000 2.232 0.52
Black Money To 0 8
White Money
*significant at 5% level
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output
Table-8: One-Way ANOVA for Occupation-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life
Insurance Products

Variables Occupation F- Sign-

Value Level
Govt. Pvt. Business\ Others
Employee Employee Self
Employed
N=147 N=57 N=4 N=6
Mea S.D Me S.D. Me S.D Mea S.D.
n . an an . n
A Tax Saving Plan 2.95 1.1 2.4 1.208 3.0 .00 1.67 5.16 4.328* .002
51 0 0 *
A Saving Scheme 2.58 1.1 2.4 .947 2.0 .00 2.00 1.549 0.755 .556
With Good Return 34 7 0
A Financial Security 1.88 . 1.7 1.065 1.0 .00 3.00 .00 3.619* .007
For The Family 940 2 0 *

Risk Coverage 3.11 1.3 2.2 1.098 4.0 .00 3.33 1.033 5.384* .00
66 8 0 *
Save For Pension 4.61 1.2 3.7 1.573 5.0 .00 5.00 .00 4.946* .001
90 5 0 *
To Convert Black 4.24 1.5 4.9 .875 5.0 .00 5.00 .00 2.683* .033
Money To White 47 5 0
Money
*Significant At 5% Level **Significant At 1% Level
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

Further, as per the types of occupation of the policy holders, One-way ANOVA test was
carried out. (See Table-8) For all the aspects except A2, the values of significance level for
the F-test were found to be less than 0.05 whereas for A2, the value of significance level for
the F-test was found to be more than 0.05. Hence, null hypothesis H06 for the aspects/
features, A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 is rejected whereas null hypothesis H06 for A2 is accepted.

Table-9: t-Test for Location-Wise Analysis of the Customers of Life Insurance Products

Variables Location T-Value Sign Level

Rural Urban
N=58 N=157
Mea S.D. Mea S.D.
n n
A Tax Saving Plan 2.97 .955 2.68 1.251 1.568 .118
A Saving Scheme With 2.67 1.161 2.46 1.059 1.242 .216
Good Return
A Financial Security For 2.03 1.025 1.80 .959 1.587 .114
The Family
Risk Coverage 3.29 1.487 2.78 1.249 2.551* .011
Save For Green 4.95 1.083 4.15 1.424 4.361** .000
Patch(Pension)
Convert Black Money To 4.34 1.917 4.98 .479 - .003
White Money
*Significant At 5% Level **Significant At 1% Level
Source: Primary Data/ SPSS output

DISCUSSING THE RESULTS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS:

Due to heavily skewed sample in favour of LIC, we did not focus on the comparative analysis
of the results as per the life insurer type. We were heartened to find out the results as per our
expectations. All the positive aspects of the product such as: a tax saving plan, a saving
scheme with good return, financial security for the family and risk coverage were marked
important to very important by the customers except the pension aspect. It was found from
the study that majority of the respondents did not consider the pension aspect of the product.
Hence, the life insurers have to work harder to convince the customers to buy the product as a
pension plan. Similarly, it was very good to find out that most of the customers did not think
about investing their black money in buying the products which augurs well for the economy.

In this study, we have tried to know the various aspects of a life insurance product which
influence the customers in purchasing the life insurance policy. Though the study was
handicapped by limited sample size (both geographical as well as periodical), it can be
amplified as per the national scenario with some specific modifications. This study will help
the insurance companies and the regulators in developing a better life insurance product.

REFERENCES
1. Anderson, D. R., and Nevin, J. R. (1975), Determinants of Young Married Life
Insurance Purchasing Behaviour: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Risk and
Insurance, Vol. 42, pp. 375-387.
2. Athma, P. and Kumar, R. (2007)) " An Explorative Study of Life Insurance Purchase
Decision Making: Influence of Product and Non-Product Factors ", ICFAI Journal of
Risk & Insurance, Vol. IV, October 2007, pp. 19-21.
3. Campbell, R.A. (1980), The demand for life insurance: An application of the
economics of uncertainty, Journal of Finance, Vol. 35(5), pp. 1155-1172.
4. Chen, R., K.A. Wong and H.C. Lee (2001), Age, Period and Cohort Effects On Life
Insurance Purchases in the U.S, The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 68, pp. 303-
327.
5. Churchill, Jr., G.A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of
Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No.1, 1979, pp. 64-73
6. Dash, Ganesh. and Khan, M. Basheer Ahmed. (2011), Product- the First P (of 7ps)
in Indian Life Insurance Sector: An Empirical Study, International Journal of
Research in Computer Application & Management, Vol. 1 (2011), Issue No. 2 (April),
Pp. 53-60.
7. Dash, Ganesh. and Khan, M. Basheer Ahmed. (2011), Role of Promotion in Life
Insurance Marketing: An Empirical Study, Indian Journal of Commerce &
Management Studies, Volume II, Issue 5, July 2011, pp. 24-33
8. Heir, Anderson, Tatham & Black (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Education, New Delhi, India
9. Mantis, G., and R. Farmer (1968), Demand for life Insurance, Journal of Risk and
Insurance, Vol. 35, pp. 247-256.
10. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), a Conceptual
Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of
Marketing, 49 (fall): 41-50.
11. Sahoo, S.C. and Das, S.C. (2009), Insurance Management: Texts and Cases. Mumbai,
Himalaya Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
12. Tripathi. P.K (2008), "Customer Buying Behaviour With A Focus On Market
Segmentation, Summer Training Project, Chandigarh Business School, Mohali, pp.
42-46.[15] Yelkur, Rama. (2000), Customer Satisfaction and the Services Marketing
Mix, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 21(1) pp. 105-115.