A Comparative Study of and Insurance Companies Ms. Pooja Puri Associate Professor/ Research Scholar Deptt. Of Management Studies Amritsar College of Engg. & Tech,ASR Dr. Harinder Singh Gill Professor Deptt. Of Management Studies Amritsar College of Engg. & Tech, ASR \ Abstract:. This study is mainly related to life insurance business in Indiaand privatization of life insurance sector. was monopoly in insurance sector till 2000. The competition has increased after the privatization of insurance. With the entrance of private player, the scenario of the insurance business changed. My study helps to make comparison between the with the new private life insurance companies on basis of quality of services, consumer satisfaction, awareness, consumer preference and their working as a whole.it shows the customer view point with respect to their company. (Keywords: Awareness level, Customer satisfaction and preference, Service quality, Grievances.) Introduction Until 1999, the business of life insurance in India was the monopoly of life insurance corporation of india (). In 1956 nationalization of insurance business was a major milestone in the development of insurance business in India by taking 245 private insurers business. The Indian insurance market was thrown open to private players in the year 1999 and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) was established to regulate the insurance market. After it s opening, the insurance sector has the entry of a number of private players who captured a significant market shares in the life insurance market. The public sector companies have to leverage upon their strengths to give a tough flight to the private sector players. Privatization witnessed dynamic changes in the insurance industry and most of the private companies are joint ventures with recognized foreign players across the globe. Customers are the main pillar of life insurance business. Every company tries to attract and retain existing customers to keep their profits high. When 321 compared life insurance industry in India with foreign, it achieved only a little because of low consumer awareness, poor affordability, delayed customer services, lack of suitable products. At present, in addition to in public sector, 15 private companies are operating in life business. Companies like HDFC Standard Life Insurance, TATA AIG Life Insurance, Allianz Bajaj Life Insurance, Max New York Life, OM Kotak, Birla Sun Life Insurance, SBI Life, Aviva Life Insurance, ING Vysya, MAT Life Insurance, Reliance Life, ICICI Prudencial, SAHARA Life, SriRam Life, BharatiAxa Life & AMP Sanmar are doing good business in Indian Soil. Review Of Literature Dr. Harish et al. (2014) studied the product offerings of largest public sector life insurance Company of India Life Insurance Corporation of India and the private giant ICICI prudential life insurance company Ltd on the aspects of applicability of SERVQUAL dimensions to current product offering and to study and compare the perception of customers in terms of service quality. The study also attempts to compare perceived quality of product offerings of the selected life insurance companies on SERVQUAL dimensions. MS. BABITA YADAV et al. (2014) Studied different factors which influence customers policy buying decision and also analyze the preferences of customers while life policy investment decisionmaking. is the most accepted and popular brand in life insurance, the market share of private insurers are gradually increasing with people trust and better services offered by them are some of the main findings of the study.
BidyadharPadhi (2013) The paper focused on the role and performance of private insurance companies for the period from 2001 to 2012. The study will reflect the performance of selected private insurance companies in the areas like number of policies floated, amount of premium collected and the annual growth in the respective areas from 2001 to 2012. of India enjoyed monopoly in Indian Insurance market for more than four decades. In 2000 the Insurance sector has liberalized and Insurance Development Regulatory Authority has set up. The private players are allowed to operate in collaboration with the foreign insurance companies. BINOD KUMAR SINGH (2010) studied the behavior of individual or a group of people. The study of consumer behavior provides marketers to understand and predict the future market behavior. In this paper, role of IRDA, role of Indian banks, role of private insurance companies, function of insurance company, various factors influencing consumer behavior, factors influencing buying decision and model of consumer decisions making process have been considered. Also, the types of insurance policy taken by consumer, the total sum assured of life insurance, the total sum assured of life insurance for the spouse, the share of public insurance in insurance sector, share of in life insurance in insurance sector and the reasons for invested in life insurance have been studied. Masood H. Siddiqui at el. (2010) used confirmatory factor analyses, proposes a six dimensional servicequality instrument consisting of assurance, personalized financial planning, competence, corporate image, tangibles and technology in life insurance. A causal model, using structural equation modeling, is suggested to investigate the effects of the proposed service quality instrument on customer satisfaction ( satisfaction with agents, satisfaction with functional services, satisfaction with company and finally with overall satisfaction ). Ajay Suneja at el. (2010) Stated that with increasing competition, customers have become very important for insurance companies in India. The study also compares these factors across different demographic groups of customers of life insurance companies. The study has brought out various factors influencing choice 'of a life insurance company. These factors are-promotional activities, image of company, customer convenience, financial and non-financial facilities, and premium and procedural formalities. Objectives of The Study Check the awareness level of customer s towards insurance Co. To know about factors which influence the choice of insurance company? To explore the various factors influencing customer investment decision. To Study the Consumer Preferences Towards insurance company. To compare the customers of and private life insurance in terms of service quality. To check the level of Customer Satisfaction. Study the Grievance status in and insurance companies. Research Methodology 1) Sampling Unit: It s a comparative study, so for my study I choose as a public company and other private companies. 2) Source of Data: Primary & Secondary 3) Sampling Technique: Non-probability sampling technique was used in this researched. 4) Target Place: Amritsar 5) Sampling Size: 100 respondents are taken as a sample for survey. 6) Statistical Tools and Techniques: Percentage method, Factor analysis, Chi-Square and Weighted average. Limitation As the main objective of the present research was to study the public and private life insurance sector in the Indian context, technical aspect of electronic CRM technologies was not covered properly. The scope of the study in this particular field. The sample size of present study was relatively small to generalize the results in the Indian context. 322
Response No. of % of Respondents Respondents 50 50 HDFC 17 17 ICICI 14 14 BAJAJ Allianz 11 11 Aviva India 8 8 100 100 Demographic Profile: Respondents Male 79 Female 21 Age 20-25 23 25-30 47 30-35 17 35Above 13 Education Upto HSC 7 Graduate 63 Post Graduate 3 Professional 27 Occupation Salaried 34 Business 19 Housewife 8 Students 3 Professional 27 Retired 9 Income Less Than 2Lac 35 2-3Lac 41 3 Above 24 Data Analysis & Interpretation: Awareness level of customer s towards insurance companies Figure:1Have you heard about Life Insurance or Yes 0% 100% No All respondents are aware about the company whether private or public Figure:2 Know about the various plans offered by Insurance Companies 22% Yes 10% Yes No 78% NO 90% respondents are more aware about the plans offered by their company as compared to the private respondents. 90% of the respondents are aware about the plans offered by. It is 12% more than the private life insurance company. Figure:3Media used by your insurance company Television 35 26 12 12 12 13 3 4 To a great extend Newspaper Social Media Hoardings 35 28 3 2 9 0 0 6 Somewhat Very little Not at All 323
Television Hoardings 29 36 28 19 26 15 9 15 0 3 4 5 9 0 2 0 To a great extend As per the survey, Social media is used mostly by the private life insurance companies to target the customer. respondent s point of view, television media is used mostly by the company for targeting the customer. Factors influencing customer investment decision. Figure:4 Consult before making an investment. Any Other 30% Banker Any 2% Other 32% Newspaper Somewhat VERY LITTLE Nobody 28% Social Media NOT AT ALL Banker 10% Consult ant 18% Consulta nt 14% Nobody 46% [CATEG ORY NAME] [PERCE NTA Chartere d Account ant 6% Figure:5 Insurance policies are for? Child Freq % Valid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Yes 94 94.0 94.0 94.0 Valid No 6 6.0 6.0 100.0 100 100 100.0 Adult Freq % Valid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Yes 95 95.0 95.0 95.0 Valid No 5 5.0 5.0 100.0 100 100 100.0 Old_People Frequen cy Percen t Valid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Yes 98 98.0 98.0 98.0 Valid No 2 2.0 2.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 Frequen cy Working_People Percen t Valid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Yes 98 98.0 98.0 98.0 Valid No 2 2.0 2.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 Most of the respondents perceive that all the categories of insurance policies are made for us. Figure:6 company scheme or did you invest? respondents consult other persons like relatives, friends and a person having the private life insurance policy. But respondents take their own decision at the time of making investment. Consumer Preferences Towards insurance company. 324
32% 42% 8% 0 18% Much Better Stayed the Same Somewhat Better Somewhat Worse Worse 16% 12% 28% 8% 36% 18% 10% 12% 8% 52% Much Better Somewhat Better Stayed the Same 8% We see that private respondents give preference firstly to the Endowment Plan of the company and then after it they like to choose Money back plan of the company. But respondents give their preference firstly to the Other plans of the company. Level of Customer Satisfaction. Figure:7Satisfied with the policy. 90 96 40% There is no one who feels worse after investing in. The experiences of the private respondents are not good. Grievance status in and insurance companies. Figure: 9 Problem faced. 52% Yes No 10 4 16% Yes No 84% respondents are more satisfied with policy which they have taken. Figure:8 Feel after investing in Insurance Plans. 325
Yes No 6% Excellent Average Poor 6% Above Average Below Average 9% 94% 35% 25% 25% 84% of the respondents have no problem with the insurance company. From respondents view point, the percentage is 94%. Figure:10Satisfied with the grievance handling procedure of the Company. Very Satisfied Neutral Very Dissatisfied 10% 4% 26% Very Satisfied Neutral 26% 14% 2% Satisfied Dissatisfied 38% 22% Satisfied Dissatisfied 58% Figure:11 Rate Life Insurance by 9% of the respondents rate Excellent to private life insurance company as compared to the and that all are private respondents. Chi-Square Test H01 ()There is no significant relationship b/w income and investment. H02 () There is no significant relationship b/w income and investment. Respondents Investment * Income Crosstabulation Invest ment Upto 1lac 1lac- 2lac 2lac- 3lac Less than 2lac Income 2-3lac Above 3lac 16 13 0 29 Expect ed 9.9 11.6 7.5 29.0 1 6 5 12 Expect ed 4.1 4.8 3.1 12.0 0 1 4 5 Expect ed 1.7 2.0 1.3 5.0 0 0 4 4 Above Expect 3lac ed 1.4 1.6 1.0 4.0 17 20 13 50 326
327 Expect ed 17.0 20.0 13.0 50.0 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 34.483 a 6.00 Likelihood Ratio 41.417 6.00 Linear-by- Linear Association 26.263 1.00 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.04. CHI-SQUARE value we get is 34.483%. From the above Chi-square test table, we see that asymptotic significance value is.00, which show that the differences are real not due to the chance. It shows a significant relationship between the income and investment. It rejected the null hypothesis. Invest ment Respondents Investment * Income Crosstabulation Upto 1lac 1lac- 2lac Income Less 2-3lac Above than 2lac 3lac 10 12 5 27 Expec ted 9.7 11.3 5.9 27.0 8 4 1 13 Expec ted 4.7 5.5 2.9 13.0 2lac- 0 5 1 6 3lac Above 3lac Expec ted 2.2 2.5 1.3 6.0 0 0 4 4 Expec ted 1.4 1.7.9 4.0 18 21 11 50 Expec ted 18.0 21.0 11.0 50.0 Respondents having the income less than 2lac invest up to the amount of 2lac in the insurance company (10- up to 1lac; 8-1to2lac). Respondents having the income 2-3lac invest up to 3lac (12- up to 1lac; 4-1to2lac; 5-2to3lac). Respondents having the income above 3lac invest up to 3lac or above (5- up to 1lac; 1-1to2lac; 1-2to3lac; 1- above 3lac). Chi-Square Tests Pearson Square Likelihood Ratio Chi- Linear-by- Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) 23.011 a 6.001 22.600 6.001 5.687 1.017 50 a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is.88. CHI-SQUARE value we get is 23.011%. From the above Chi-square test table, we see that asymptotic significance value is.01, which show that the differences are real not due to the chance. It shows a significant relationship between the income and investment. It rejected the null hypothesis.
Weighted Average Method RANKING VARIOUS FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTMENT IN LIFE INSURANCE PRODUCTS Ranking Factors Tax Benefit Risk coverage & saving Security With High Service Insurance Service Premium Charges No. Of Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 100 72 18 6 3 1 100 7 46 27 11 9 100 13 4 29 8 46 100 1 3 4 30 62 100 2 7 12 13 66 100 Now, for analyzing the various factors responsible for investing in insurance policies, ranking is done on basis of weighted score TABLE NO.2. scoring is done as per the scale 1-5weights. 1rank 5; 2rank 4; 3rank 3; 4rank 2; 5rank 5 Factors Ranking Of Various Factors Weighted Score Mean Tax Benefit 457 4.57 1 Risk coverage & saving Security With High Service Insurance Service Premium Charges 331 3.31 2 230 2.30 3 151 1.51 5 166 1.66 4 Rank It is revealed from the table no. 1and table no. 2, majority of the respondents invest in life insurance for tax benefit, followed by the risk coverage & saving, security with high return, premium charges and insurance services can be ranked as 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th respectively. Factor Analysis Factors influenced while choosing insurance company. Reliability Analysis- As depicted in Table, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for this sample was 0.561, which is greater than 0.5, suggests that the data is adequate for factor analysis. KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi- Square.561 201.433 df 55 Sig..000 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Advertiseme nt N of Items.524 11 Rotated Component Matrix a Component 1 2 3 4 5 0.85 2 Persuasion by agents 0.85 Wide Variety Of Insurance `Products 0.84 6 Managemen t 0.843 Easy Settlement 0.758 Customer care &Redressal 0.738 E-Payment 0.659 Accessibilit y of offices 0.642 328
Premium & Procedural formalities 0.85 Easy mode of depositing premium 0.721 Financial & Non- Financial Facilities 0.937 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Statement COMPONENT4 Formalities This factors exhibits that the company formalities also affect the company choice. COMPONENT5 Facilities.This factors exhibits that the company facilities also affect the company choice, whether it is 329 Factor Loading C1 Advertisement.852 C1 Persuasion by agents.850 C1 Wide Variety Of Insurance Products.846 C2 Top Management.843 C2 Easy Settlement.758 C3 Customer care &Redressal.738 C3 E-payment.659 C3 Accessibility of offices.642 C4 Premium & Procedural formalities.850 C4 Easy Mode For Depositing Premium.721 C5 Financial & Non-Financial Facilities.937 COMPONENT1 Promotional Activities This factors exhibits that the promotional activities affected mostly in choosing the company by the consumer. COMPONENT2 Company Image Highest loading variable is Top management that is.843. It means that working of top management in the company directly affected the choice of a consumer. COMPONENT3 Customer Convenience Highest loading variable is Customer care &redressal that is.738. It means that customer care &redressal by the company become an important variable while choosing the company. financial or non-financial. Quality Of Service Response Reliability Analysis- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for this sample was 0.764, which is greater than 0.5, suggests that the data is adequate for factor analysis. The significance value of 0.000 tells us that there is a correlation between variables. Hence, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the variables are correlated with each other. This indicates that the factor model, as a model for data analysis, can be accepted. The reliability estimate (Chronbach's Alpha) is 0.838 which indicates acceptable reliability of data. KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Approx. Chi- Square.764 156.488 df 21 Sig..000 N of Items.838 7 Rotated Component Matrix a When you have problems, it shows a sincere interest in solving it. Promise to do something certain time, it does so Provides its services at the time it promise to do so Employees in company give you prompt services You feel safe in your transactions Component 1 2.850.798.766.634.793
Operating hours convenient to all its customers Company gets things right the first time Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. Initial Eigen Values % Of Variance Cumulative% 1 3.681 52.591 52.591 2 1.069 15.273 67.864.760.674 Table indicates that 67.864 per cent of cumulative variance has been explained by two (2) factors. The variance reflects considerable contribution of these factors while choosing a particular company for obtaining life insurance company in terms of their service quality. s Statement C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 When you have a problems, it show ainterest in solving it. Promise to do something certain time, it does so Employees in company give you prompt services You feel safe in your transactions Company gets things right the first time.850.798.634.793.674 COMPONENT1 Commitment These factors exhibits that the Commitment attracts the customer in respect of quality of services. COMPONENT2 Security These factors exhibits that the Security attracts the customer in respect of quality of services. Quality Of Service Response Reliability Analysis- Sampling adequacy for this sample was 0.755. The significance value is 0.000. The reliability estimate (Chronbach's Alpha) is 0.834 which indicates acceptable reliability of data. KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi- Square.755 159.04 8 Df 21 Sig..000 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items.834 7 Rotated Component Matrix a Employees in company give you prompt services Operating hours convenient to all its customers Provides its services at the time it promise to do so Promise to do something certain time, it does so You feel safe in your transactions Company gets things right the first time When you have problems, it shows a sincere interest in solving it. Component 1 2.891.796.793.560 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization..910.818.699 330
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. Initial Eigen Values % Of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.592 51.320 51.320 2 1.290 18.434 69.753 Table indicates that 69.753 per cent of cumulative variance has been explained by two (2) factors. The variance reflects considerable contribution of these factors while choosing a particular company for obtaining life insurance company in terms of their service quality. To interpret the factors, the first factor has an Eigen value of 3.592. Since this is greater than 1.0, it explains more variance than a single variable. The percentage of variance explained by this factor is 51.320 per cent. The second factor has an Eigen value of 1.290 and explains 18.434 per cent of the variance in the original data. C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 Statement Employees in company give you prompt services Operating hours convenient to all its customers Promise its services at the time it promise to do so You feel safe in your transactions Company gets things right the first time Factor Loading.891.796.793.910.818 COMPONENT1 Time These factors exhibits that the Time attracts the customer in respect of quality of services. COMPONENT2 Security These factors exhibits that the Security attracts the customer in respect of quality of services Overall Satisfaction Factors Response Sampling adequacy for this sample was 0.536. The reliability estimate (Chronbach's Alpha) is 0.517 which indicates acceptable reliability of data. Rotated Component Matrix a Component 1 2 3 Assurance.803 Tangibles.785 Empathy.846 Technology.710 Personalized_Financial_Pl anning.818 Corporate_Image.785 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Initial Eigen Values % Of Variance Cumulativ e% 1 1.831 30.521 30.521 2 1.407 23.455 53.976 3 1.095 18,251 72.227 Table indicates that 72.227 per cent of cumulative variance has been explained by three (3) factors. Statement C1 Assurance.803 C1 Tangibles.785 C2 Empathy.846 C2 Technology.710 C3 Personalized Financial Planning.818 C3 Corporate image.785 331
Response Sampling adequacy for this sample was 0.546, which is greater than 0.5, suggests that the data is adequate for factor analysis. KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy..546 Approx. Chi- Bartlett's Test of Square 31.888 Sphericity Df 15 Sig..007 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items.524 6 Rotated Component Matrix a Corporate_Image.914 Tangibles.810 Component 1 2 3 Assurance.744 Personalized_Financi al_planning.642 Empathy.546 Technology.908 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. Initial Eigen Values % Of Cumulative% Variance 1 1.906 31.773 31.773 2 1.126 18.769 50.541 3 1.052 17.535 68.077 Table indicates that 68.077 per cent of cumulative variance has been explained by three (3) factors. The variance reflects the satisfaction on the basis of various factors. To interpret the factors, the first factor has an Eigen value of 1.906. Since this is greater than 1.0, it explains more variance than a single variable. Statement C1 Corporate images.914 C1 Tangibles.810 C2 Assurance.744 C2 Personalized financial planning.642 C2 Empathy.546 C3 Technology.908 Conclusion All respondent are aware about the presence of company and regarding media used by their company. respondents are more aware about the plans offered by their company. From the survey we see that the customer, whether it is of or company is duly influenced by the promotional activity, company image, customer convenience, formalities and facilities. Respondents consult other persons like relatives, friends and a person having the private life insurance policy. respondents take their own decision at the time of making investment due to their faith in the company. Majority of the respondents invest in life insurance for tax benefit, followed by the risk coverage & saving, security with high return, premium charges and insurance services, whether it is or respondents. respondents give their preference firstly to Endowment Plan of the company and respondents give their preference to the other plans of the company. Respondents whether or is clear regarding insurance policies, they prefer plan according to their need. With the change in time need also changed. Quality of service is an important aspect, Both and respondents want security from their company. respondents rate overall satisfaction in providing services on the 332
basis of- Assurance, Empathy, Personalized financial planning. respondents rate overall satisfaction in providing services on the basis of- Corporate image, Assurance And Technology. respondents are more satisfied with policy which they have taken as compared to private. The experience of the respondents is good as compared to the private respondents. There is no one who feels worse after investing in. The experiences of the private respondents are not good. But it does not mean, they feel same for all private companies. That was its personal experience for a particular type of insurance company. Rate given by respondents to private life insurance company is more to below average. respondents faced more problem as compared to. Grievance handling is good as compared to private in and respondents satisfied with their procedure. Recommendation People give a high priority to security of their investment, therefore the promotion schemes should concentrate on educating the customers that sector players have a strong financial backing like that of. It is seen that till today a large portion of population is unaware of various insurance plans, these include educated professionals also. Therefore, the sector insurance companies should focus on improving awareness and increase the understanding about insurance plans thus increasing their scope of sale. Life Insurance Companies should lay more stress on advertises, both in print as well as in other media. To introduce innovative products offering a right mix of flexibility/risk/return depending, which will suite the requirement of the customers. References Indian Journal of Economics & Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, (2010) Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, July - December 2007 IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR- JBM)e-ISSN: 2278-487X. Volume 7, Issue 4 (Jan. - Feb. 2013), PP 45-52 Yadav, Babita and Tiwari, Anshuja (2012). International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, Vol.1 (7), pp.106-123 Khurana, Sunayna (2008), Customer Preferences in Life Insurance Industry in India,ICFAI University, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 6(3), pp. 60-68. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management ResearchVol.1 Issue 7, July 2012 Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing (2010)18. Journal of Radix International Educational and Research Consortium Volume 1, Issue 11(November 2012) Ray, Subhasis and Ali, Shahid (2008), "Gap Analysis Between Customer's Expectation and Current Provisions of Indian Life Insurance Industry", The Icfai University Journalof Consumer Behavior,Vol. III,No.3, pp. 33-46. McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000) Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing 14(5): 392 410. Crosby, L. A. and Stephens, N. (1987) Effect of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life insurance industry. Journal of Marketing Research 24(4): 404 411. Mehta, S.C. and Lobo, A. (2002) MSS, MSA and Zone of Tolerance as measures of service quality: A study of the life insurance industry. Second International Services Marketing Conference, University of Queensland. C.S. Rao (2007), The Regulatory Challenges Ahead Journal of Insurance Chronicle, Vol.VII, issue-x, Oct.2007. Singh, B. K. and Srivastava, S. (2008), Consumer Decision Making-An Empirical Study, Marketing Innovations for Reaching Consumers, Wisdom Publications, 19-29. Scott, R. (2000) Shaping the future of the life agency force. Coverage 26(1): 22 26. Jayawardhena, C. and Foley, P. (2000) Changes in the banking sector-the case of Internet banking in the UK. Internet Research 10(1): 19 31. Overview of Indian insurance sector; academic open internet journal; ISSN 11311-4360.Volume 22, and April 7, 2000. Business Today, the monitory Group Study on Insurance I and II, March 22 and April 7, 2000. 333