Using SERVQUAL model for comparative service quality analysis of the Indian non-life insurance sector.
Kumar, Rohit ; Singh, Manjit
Introduction
Indian Non-life insurance industry has suddenly witnessed a major
boom. Being a globalized market, the customers seek and demand world
class products. In today's global market everything is benchmarked
and compared. The market for insurance business is found to be vast, the
potential policyholders are in a very good number, and their needs and
requirements are not identical. The success of insurance companies in
the market rests on the availability of customized product and also the
service quality offered to customers. At this juncture, the insurance
companies should evaluate their services and identify their distinction
from others. The only way to succeed in the market is the formulation of
differentiated service to different customer segments. Delivering of
quality services to the customers has become an indispensable factor for
success and survival in today's competitive insurance environment.
Non-life insurance is a professional service which is characterized by
high involvement of the consumers due to the importance of tailoring to
the specific needs, the variability of the products available, the
complexity involved in the policies and processes, and the need to
involve the consumer in every aspect of the transaction. The
post-liberalized insurance industry in India has been witnessing a
discernible shift from the seller to the buyers' market. The
reformed insurance industry has offered a plethora of new customer
friendly products, new delivery channels like bancassurance, corporate
agents, brokers and direct selling through the internet, greater use of
computerization and information technology. The detariffing will be a
major reform of the insurance pricing regime and is likely to introduce
a paradigm change in the non-life sector. The customers'
expectations have reached an all time high. The opening up of the market
has brought competition in the market, and the customer decides the
price of the product and service level offered. So, the customer is the
focus of the business, not only marketing practices acquire critical
importance, but the manner in which the customer is served also needs
close attention. The customer is now better informed and his
expectations are on the rise in marketing. These changing circumstances are exerting pressure on the existing players in the industry to rewrite their strategies and policies. They will have to raise their level of
customer services to fight for survival in the market place. They will
have to become much sharper and more market savvy. Non-life insurance
companies themselves feel the need to improve service quality. Under
these circumstances, there is a need to assess how far the public and
private non-life insurance companies will be able to satisfy their
customers by providing quality service. Performance evaluation of an
individual insurance company will be insignificant for this purpose.
Inter-firm comparison within the non-life insurance companies as a whole
is required to examine how they are performing in the post-reform
period.
Measurement of Service Quality
Notwithstanding the recognized importance of service quality there
have been methodological issues and application problems with regard to
its operationalization. Quality in the context of service industries has
been conceptualized differently and based on different
conceptualizations, alternative scales have been proposed for service
quality measurement. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF constitute two major service
quality measurement scales. The consensus, however, continues to elude till date as to which one is superior.
SERVQUAL Scale
The foundation for the SERVQUAL scale is the gap model proposed by
Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). According to the gap model,
satisfaction is related to the size and direction of disconfirmation of
a person's experience vis-a-vis his or her initial expectations. As
a gap or difference between customer expectations and perceptions,
service quality is viewed as lying along a continuum ranging from ideal
quality to totally unacceptable quality with some points along the
continuum representing satisfactory quality. Parasuraman et al. (1988)
held that when perceived or experienced service is less than expected
service, it implies less than satisfactory service quality. But, when
the perceived service is more than the expected service, the obvious
inference is that service quality is more than satisfactory. Parasuraman
et al. (1988) pointed out that while a negative discrepancy between
perceptions and expectations--a 'performance gap' as they call
it--causes dissatisfaction, a positive discrepancy leads to consumer
delight. Parasuraman et al. identified a set of 22 variables/items
tapping five different dimensions of service quality construct. Since
service quality has been operationalized as being a gap between
customer's expectations and perceptions of performance on these
variables, the service quality scale comprised of total 44 items (22 for
expectations and 22 for perceptions). The higher the perception minus
expectation score, the higher is perceived to be the level of service
quality. Several issues have been raised with regard to use of (P-E) gap
scores, i.e., disconfirmation model. Validity of (P-E) measurement
framework has also come under attack due to problems with the
conceptualization and measurement of expectation component of the
SERVQUAL scale.
In 1988, Parasuraman et al. developed SERVQUAL, a method to assess
customer loyalty for service industries. Their measurement involved the
difference between customers' perceptions and expectations based on
five generic dimensions:
* Tangibility: appearance of physical facilities, equipment,
personnel and written materials.
* Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably
and accurately.
* Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt
service.
* Assurance: employees' knowledge and courtesy and their
ability to inspire trust and confidence.
* Empathy: caring, individualized attention given to customers.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed that service quality is a
function of the differences between expectation and performance along
the quality dimensions. They developed a service quality model based on
gap analysis. This model of service quality is derived from the
magnitude and direction of five gaps which include consumer
expectations-experiences discrepancies in addition to the differences in
service design, communications, management and delivery. The first four
gaps affect the way in which service is delivered, and the existence of
these four gaps leads to the extent of gap five.
According to this model, the service quality is a function of
perception and expectations and can be modeled as:
SQ = [[summation].sup.k.sub.j=1] ([P.sub.ij] - [E.sub.ij])
Where
SQ = overall service quality; k= number of attributes.
Pij = Performance perception of stimulus i with respect to
attribute j.
Eij = Service quality expectation for attribute j that is the
relevant norm for stimulus i.
No doubt, the SERVQUAL scale entails greater data collection work,
but employing direct rather than computed expectation, disconfirmation
measures can ease it out. So, in this study, SERVQUAL scale is used to
assess the comparative service quality of both the public and private
sector non-life insurance companies due to its better diagnostic ability
in providing an insight into managerial intervention and strategy
formulation.
Review of Literature
Service quality has emerged as an important area in the
sustainability and growth of the business and its various dimensions
have been explored by various academicians and researchers at the
national and international level. Parasuraman et al. (1988), described
the development of 22-item instrument (called SERVQUAL) for assessing
customer perceptions of service quality in service and retailing
organisations. The results indicated a refined scale (SERVQUAL) with 22
items spread among five dimensions; namely, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance and empathy. Carman (1990), reported on the replication and
testing of the SERVQUAL and offered suggestions for its use by
retailers. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (PZB) have developed an
instrument for measuring quality that they propose as a "basic
skeleton" for use "across a broad spectrum of services."
Parasuraman et al. (1991), described a multi-sector study in which they
refined their original SERVQUAL instruments and re-examined the
reliability and validity of this scale. The results indicated that the
reliability co-efficients for the perception minus expectation gap
scores for the five SERVQUAL dimensions are consistently high across the
various samples, thereby indicating high internal consistency among
items within each dimension. Cronin and Taylor (1992), investigated the
conceptualization and measurement of service quality and the
relationships between service quality, customer satisfaction and
purchase intention. The results suggested that service quality should be
measured as an attitude. The performance based scale developed
(SERVPERF) is more efficient in comparison to the SERVQUAL scale. Teas
(1993), examined the validity of P-E "gap" framework as
currently specified and on the basis of this examination, developed and
tested alternative models of consumers' perception of quality. The
results indicated that the evaluated performance (EP) model may be more
valid than the SERVQUAL, P-E, and the normed quality (NQ) model. Stott
(2001), investigated the issues related to achieving service delivery
excellence in an active and developing insurance company. The paper
concludes that if a company cannot deliver both quality products and
services successfully, it will eventually be overtaken by the
competition. Forbes (2000), emphasized on delivering excellent customer
service in the insurance industry. It has been described that the
outstanding customer service although conceptually simple, is difficult
to achieve. Brady et al. (2002), evaluated the two service quality
measurement models of the performance only index (SERVPERF) and the
gap-based SERVQUAL scale. The results of first study indicated that the
replication successfully duplicated their finding as to the superiority
of the 'performance only' measurement of service quality. The
results from the other two studies also lent storing support again for
the superiority of the 'performance only' approach 'to
the measurement of service quality'. Jain and Gupta (2004),
assessed the diagnostic power of the two service quality scales, namely,
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales. The study found SERVPERF scale to be
providing a more convergent and discriminant valid explanation of the
service quality construct. However, the scale was found deficient in its
diagnostic power. Tripathy (2004), made an endeavor to find out the
perception of customers towards insurance companies through marketing
variables, and also analyzed the performance of customers and the
importance they assigned to different attributes. The author suggested
that to achieve greater insurance penetration, private companies have to
create more vibrant and competitive industry, with greater efficiency,
choice of products and value for customers. Rand (2004), examined the
suitability of SERVQUAL'S application in the insurance industry to
diagnose service quality in the insurance industry of Greece and Kenya.
The results indicated that the quality gaps that are obtained in the
insurance industries of Greece and Kenya are largely the same. In both
countries, the customers' expectations were in excess of their
perceptions. The dimensions of reliability and empathy were the most
deficient and need appropriate actions to improve the quality of their
services. Goswami (2007), made an attempt to understand the dimensions
of service quality which help ensuring maximum customer satisfaction,
and hence, help life insurers to acquire a large share of the market.
The results indicated that the responsiveness of service quality
provided maximum customer satisfaction in the life insurance industry in
India. The study suggested the insurers to improve customer
relationship. Devasenathipathi et al. (2007), compared and rated all the
life insurance companies, measured the customer perception, purchase
behavior, consumer awareness regarding life insurance industry and also
studied the privatization, policy awareness and life coverage awareness
among the consumers. The study concluded that the entry of private
players brought better service, quicker settlement, greater awareness
and more choice. Chawla and Singh (2008), investigated the service
quality factors affecting customer satisfaction levels of the
policyholders. The comparison of overall mean satisfaction based on
various factors expected showed that respondents who had purchased
insurance policies before privatization had a higher mean score as
compared to respondents who took insurance policies after privatization.
The perusal of these studies reveal that large number of research
has been conducted on insurance sector but no worth while research has
been conducted on comparative service quality level of Indian Non-life
Insurance Companies using SERVQUAL approach. So, this study is an
attempt in this direction.
Objectives of the Study
The present study is conceived with following objectives:
1. To assess the comparative service quality level of the
Government owned and Private Sector Non-life Insurance Companies.
2. To make suggestions to the Non-life insurance companies to
improve the service quality level.
Developing the Research Instrument
For analyzing the customers' perception and expectation
towards service quality of non-life insurance companies, a modified
SERVQUAL type questionnaire relevant to the insurance industry was
constructed. A questionnaire included 22-items from the original five
dimensions (i.e. Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance,
and Empathy) of the SERVQUAL instrument developed and updated by
Parasuraman et al. (1994). In order to obtain an even more comprehensive
and insurance industry specific measure of the service quality, 16
additional items were added to the SERVQUAL scale. The additional items
were derived by reviewing the studies conducted in the insurance sector,
personal interviews with managers, employees, officers and customers of
non-life insurance companies. Thus, in total, 38 items were included
under seven dimensions (i.e. Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy, Product Availability, and Product Convenience) to
measure the service quality. All the items were measured on the
five-point Likert scale from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly
disagree).
Sample and Sampling Design
The universe of the study is all non-life insurance companies
operating in India but due to non-feasibility and time constraint, the
scope of the study has been restricted to five non-life insurance
companies, i.e., two companies from the government owned, namely, New
India Assurance Company Ltd., and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.; and
three from the private sector companies, namely, ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The criterion adopted for
selecting the private sector companies was their year of registration.
The reforms in the insurance industry were initiated in the year 1999
and the private sector non-life insurance companies started their
business in 2000. A total of six companies were registered during this
period. However, for the purpose of uniformity, top three private sector
non-life insurance companies registered on the basis of their market
share were selected. The primary data was drawn from customers of both
public and private sector non-life insurance companies and only in the
state of Punjab. As many as 430 customers were approached to collect the
required data for the study. However, 300 questionnaires filled by the
respondents, 60 each from all the five selected companies, with a
response percentage of 69.8 were found complete in all respects for the
analysis. T-test was used to analyze the significant mean difference
between the gap of customers' perceptions and expectations of the
public and private sector companies regarding service quality
dimensions.
Results and Discussions
The objective of the study is to investigate the comparative
service quality level of the government owned and private sector
non-life insurance companies. An attempt has been made to examine the
significant gap between the service quality of government owned and
private sector non-life insurance companies by using t-test on the gaps
(P-E) on all the items of seven dimensions.
Tangibility
The table reveals that the difference between gap (P-E) regarding
item numbers 1, 3 and 4 under tangible dimension of the government owned
and private sector is insignificant because P-value is greater than the
threshold limit 0.05. The item called "physical facilities visually
appealing" shows a significant difference between gap (P-E) of the
government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies. The
analysis provides that the service quality of the private sector is
significantly higher than that of the government owned as far as the
second item is concerned.
Reliability
As is evident from the table, the service quality on two items of
reliability, namely, "show sincere interest in solving
customers' problems" and "goodwill" of the private
sector is significantly higher than that of the government owned. There
is no significant gap between service quality level on the other five
attributes of reliability among the private and government owned
non-life insurance companies.
Responsiveness
Table 3 highlights the variation in comparative service quality
level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance
companies. The results indicated that the service quality of the private
sector non-life insurance companies on the item "employees and
agents constantly communicate with customers" is significantly
better than that of the government owned. There is no significant gap
between the service quality level of both the government owned and
private sector companies on the other five items of responsiveness
dimension under study.
Assurance
The analysis of the table reveals that the service quality of
private sector on the items called "employees and agents are
courteous with customers" is significantly higher than that of the
government owned. There is no significant gap between the service
quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life
insurance companies on the other four items of assurance dimension.
Empathy
As is evident from the table that the service quality of the
private sector non-life insurance companies on three items under empathy
dimension, namely, operating hours convenient to all their customers,
understand the specific needs of their customers, and commit to ethics and promote ethical behavior is significantly higher than that of the
government owned non-life insurance companies. There is no significant
gap between the government owned and private sector non-life insurance
companies regarding other five attributes under empathy dimension of
service quality.
Product Availability
Table 6 shows that there is no significant difference between
service quality level of the government owned and private sector
non-life insurance companies on all the five attributes under product
availability dimension.
Product Convenience
Table 7 reveals that there is no significant difference between
service quality level of the government owned and private sector
non-life insurance companies on all the three dimensions under product
convenience dimension.
Findings, Conclusions and Suggestions
The present study further investigates the comparison of the
difference of negative gaps of perceptions and expectations between the
government owned and private sector, to make a comparison of service
quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life
insurance companies. The results indicated that the negative gap scores
of the government owned insurers are significantly higher in eight items
representing 'Physical facilities visually appealing' of
tangibility, 'Company shows sincere interest in solving customer
problem' and 'Goodwill' of reliability, 'Employees
and agents constantly communicate with customers' of
responsiveness, 'Employees and agents are courteous with
customers' of assurance and 'operating hours convenient to all
their customers', 'Understand the specific needs of their
customers' and 'Commit to ethics and promote ethical
behavior' of empathy dimension. Therefore, it is found that the
service quality of the private sector on 8 out of 38 items is
significantly higher than that of the government owned because in these
items the negative gap score of the government owned is significantly
higher than that of the private sector. The service quality of the
government owned and private sector is insignificantly different
regarding the other thirty items which implies that the service quality
of the private insurers is better than that of the government owned
insurers in few areas only. The study suggests that if the government
owned insurers want to increase its service quality level as compared to
the private sector, it should enhance the level of service on eight
items, namely, 'Physical facilities visually appealing' of
tangibility, 'Company shows sincere interest in solving customer
problems' and 'Goodwill' of reliability, 'Employees
and agents constantly communicate with customers' of
responsiveness, 'Employees and agents are courteous with
customers' of assurance, and 'operating hours convenient to
all their customers', 'Understand the specific needs of their
customers' and 'Commit to ethics and promote ethical
behavior' of empathy dimension, where the negative gap of service
quality of the private sector is significantly lesser than the
government owned. In order to bring improvement in these areas, the
government owned insurers should invest large amount in the renovation
of their offices, where all modern facilities need to be provided to
customers like air conditioners, clean toilets, attractive furniture and
suitable sitting arrangements. These insurers should employ certain
employees specifically to listen and redress customers' problems,
constantly communicate with the customers regarding the products,
policies, the status of their policies and claims, due date of renewal
of policies and all other information which the customers require. The
agents and employees should be properly trained to perform their duties
in the changed competitive environment. They should be trained in such a
way that their behavior towards the customers is friendly and courteous.
An attempt should also be made to inculcate ethical values in them so as
to encourage fair practices in the business. These insurers should also
keep their offices open in the late hours, which facilitate customers to
reach the office after performing their duties and business work. There
is need to spend more on enhancing their brand image too. All these
steps will go a long way for improving the service quality in Non-life
Insurance sector in India and will help the companies to survive in the
competitive environment.
References
Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.; and Brand, R.R. (2002), "Performance
Only Measurement of Service Quality: A Replication and Extension",
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No.1, pp.17-31.
Carman, J.M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality:
An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions", Journal of Retailing,
Vol.66, No.1, pp. 33-55.
Chawla, S.; and Singh, F. (2008), "Service Quality Perceptions
of Life Insurance Policyholders in Northern India: Pre-privatization vs.
Post-privatization", The ICFAI University Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol.VII, No.4, pp. 24-53.
Cronin, J.; and Taylor, S.A. (1992), "Measuring Service
Quality: A Re-examination and Extension", Journal of Marketing,
Vol.56, No.3, July, pp.55-67.
Devasenathipathi, T.; Saleendran, P.T.; and Shanmugasundaram, A.
(2007), "A Study on Consumer Preference and Comparative Analysis of
All Life Insurance Companies", The ICFAI Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 7-15.
Forbes (2000), "Delivering Customer Service Excellence"
Insurance Research and Practice, Vol.15, pt. 1, pp. 19-23.
Goswami, P. (2007),"Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality
in the Life Insurance Industry in India", The ICFAI Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. V, No.1, pp. 25-29.
Jain, S.K.; and Gupta, G. (2004), "Measuring Service Quality:
SERVQUAL Vs. SERVPERF Scales", Vikalpa, Vol.29, No.2, April-June,
pp. 25-37.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), "A
Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future
Research", Journal of Marketing, Vol.49, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; and Berry, L.L. (1988),
"SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions
of Service Quality", Journal of Retailing, Vol.64, No.1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; and Berry, L.L. (1991),
"Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale", Journal
of Retailing, Vol.67, No.4, pp. 420-40.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994),
"Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring
Service Quality: Implications for Further Research" Journal of
Marketing, Vol.58, January, pp. 111-124.
Rand, G.K. (2004), "Diagnosis and Improvement of Service
Quality in the Insurance Industries of Greece and Kenya", Accessed
on 7-5-2005, Available at: www.Lums.Lancs.ac.uk,
Standard and Poor's (2007), "Regional Challenges"
Asia Insurance Post, October, pp.19-21.
Stott, D.(2001),"Service Quality in a Developing Market",
The Journal, Jan.-June, pp.16-23.
Teas, R.K. (1993), "Expectations, Performance, Evaluation and
Consumers' Perceptions of Quality", Journal of Marketing,
Vol.57, Oct., pp. 18-34.
Tripathy, N.P.(2004),"An Application of Multi-dimensional
Scaling Model towards Brand Positioning of Insurance Industry",
Insurance Chronicle, October, pp. 1925.
1. Dr. Rohit Kumar, Assistant Professor, Punjabi University College, Moonak (SANGRUR)
Email: rohitrjpl@gmail.com , Mobile No. 09501512500
2. Dr. Manjit Singh, Associate Professor, School of Applied
Management, Punjabi University, Patiala(147002), Email:
smanjitt@gmail.com Mobile No. 08146100227 (Corresponding Author)
Table 1
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Tangible Dimension
Government Private t-value p-
Tangibility owned Sector value
Gap (P-E) Gap (P-E)
Modern equipment -0.33 -0.18 -1.368 0.172
and technology
Physical facilities -0.43 -0.19 -2.138 0.033
visually appealing
Employees and agents -0.33 -0.19 -1.007 0.315
neat in appearance
Materials associated -0.28 -0.09 -1.432 0.153
with the services
appealing
Table 2
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Reliability Dimension
Reliability Government Private t-value p-value
owned Gap Sector
(P-E) Gap (PE)
Promise to do -0.46 -0.48 0.139 0.890
something by a
certain time, they
do so.
Show sincere -0.67 -0.38 -2.124 0.035
interest in solving
customers problems
Perform the service -0.53 -0.38 -1.007 0.315
at the first
instance.
Provide their -0.60 -0.43 -1.130 0.260
services at the time
they promise to do
so.
Error free record -0.58 -0.49 -0.643 0.520
Sound financial -0.26 -0.27 0.113 0.910
strength
Goodwill -0.32 -0.06 -2.064 0.040
Table 3
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Responsiveness Dimension
Responsiveness Governme Private t-value p-value
nt owned Sector
Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)
Employees and agents -0.33 -0.22 -0.820 0.413
tell customers
exactly when
services performed.
Employees and agents -0.49 -0.24 -1.927 0.055
give prompt services
to customers.
Employees and agents -0.38 -0.19 -1.540 0.125
willing to help
customers.
Employees and agents -0.33 -0.18 -1.012 0.312
are never too busy
to respond to
customers' requests.
Employees and agents -0.33 0.22 -4.109 0.000
constantly
communicate with
customers.
Method of -0.38 -0.32 -0.501 0.617
communication suits
the needs of
customers.
Table 4
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Assurance Dimension
Assurance Government Private t-value p-value
owned Gap Sector
(P-E) Gap (PE)
The behavior of -0.38 -0.23 1.131 0.259
employees and agents
instills confidence
in customers.
Customers feel that -0.39 -0.37 0.192 0.848
their transactions
are safe.
Employees and agents -0.33 -0.03 2.278 0.023
are courteous with
customers.
Employees and agents -0.38 -0.36 0.149 0.881
have knowledge to
render professional
service to
customers.
Employees and agents -0.16 -0.22 0.462 0.645
give accurate
presentation of
products and
services.
Table 5
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Empathy Dimension
Empathy Government Private t-value p-value
owned Sector
Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)
Customers' -0.43 -0.272 -1.170 0.243
individual
attention.
Operating hours -0.40 -0.150 -1.958 0.049
convenient to all
their customers.
Employees and agents -0.29 -0.111 -1.331 0.184
who give customer
personal attention.
The customers' best -0.39 -0.239 -1.126 0.261
interests at heart.
Understand the -0.43 -0.083 -2.570 0.011
specific needs of
their customers.
Welcome complaints -0.41 -0.317 -0.683 0.495
and criticism and
respond positively.
Organize consumer -0.37 -0.272 -0.786 0.432
awareness programmes
under CRM.
Commit to ethics and -0.38 -0.039 -2.655 0.008
promote ethical
behavior.
Table 6
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Product Availability Dimension
Product Availability Government Private p-value
owned Sector t-value
Gap (P-E) Gap (P-E)
Products and -0.25 -0.089 -1.270 0.205
services of utmost
quality.
Diversified products -0.32 -0.217 -0.845 0.399
and policies.
Competitive price of -0.36 -0.367 0.067 0.947
their products and
services.
Customers assured of -0.30 -0.361 0.424 0.672
highest product/
services through
appropriate
guarantees.
Differentiate -0.23 -0.106 -0.927 0.354
adequately their
products and
services.
Table 7
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Product Convenience Dimension
Product Convenience Government Private t-value p-value
owned Sector
Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)
Contract of -0.53 -0.47 -0.492 0.623
insurance policies
with clear and
transparent terms.
Settle customers' -0.60 -0.41 -1.278 0.202
claims without any
delay.
Formalities for -0.33 -0.17 -1.112 0.267
taking a policy of
the company are
simple.