SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR.

RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

A STUDY ON CONSUMER AWARENESS LEVELS TOWARDS LIFE INSURANCE

PRODUCTS IN SECUNDERABAD DIVISION

S.Suresh1 & Rambabu Gopisetti2, Ph. D.

1
Research Scholar, Department of Commerce and Business Management, Telangana
University, Dichapally, Nizamabad, Telanagana State-503322
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, Telangana University, Dichapally,
Nizamabad, Telanagana State-503322

Abstract
The growing need for financial education for the families to take better financial decision and to
increase their economic security has been widely recognized, and educated customer can create
economic ripples. The present study is to assess the level of awareness of policy holders about various
aspects of life insurance, descriptive statistics ANOVA test was used to the primary data consisting of
672 sample respondents from Secunderabad LIC Division. The results of the study were intended to
help in assessing the level of awareness of policy holders in the Division.
Keywords: Ripples, ANOVA, Secunderabad LIC Division, awareness, descriptive statistics

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

1.0: Introduction
The importance of insurance is unquestionable in modern economies as it serves a broad
public interest and is vital to individuals’ security. In today’s context, though the customer
has a variety of products to choose from, wise choices are possible only with requisite
awareness. With the rise of affluence and increased product awareness, the middle class is
fast emerging as the most lucrative segment of the Indian market for financial services
companies. India has a large working population with higher disposable income than in the
past and therefore a great propensity to buy product to meet their growing aspirations.
2.0: Literature Review
(Bodla & Verma, 2007)Has conducted a field survey in five villages of Hissar District
Haryana with a sample size of 188 policy holders to the buyer behaviour regarding life
insurance policies in rural. Their main findings of the study are 1) respondents belonging to
the age group 31-40 dominate the rural insurance market. 2) The woman segment is still

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3369

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

untapped. 3) Agents are the most important source of information and motivation. 4) LIC has
got maximum market share. 5) The role of advertisement in still not up to the mark.
(Ranjan Jayakant & Manish M, 2011)He analyses the factor affecting to buying decision
of life insurance policy in Surat city of Gujarat. He finds that age, income, education
awareness about insurer, attitude towards life insurance, occupation gender etc. among all
that age, income levels, awareness about the insurer and type of insurer most affecting factor
to buying decision of life insurance policy of Surat city. He also suggests that customer
satisfaction and attitude towards life insurance are significant factor in influencing he market
share of life insurance player.
(Kumar V. , 2012)In this thesis was an in-depth study of micro-variables/determinants of
consumer behaviour. The research was exploratory cum descriptive in nature, convenient and
judgment sampling were used, the sample size for the study was 1000 policy holders
comprising of 500 rural and 500 urban from five districts of Haryana. The objective of the
study was to understand the various external and internal influences on buyer decision
making and the main purpose of the study was to investigate major determinants of consumer
behaviour for selection and buying insurance policy in Haryana.
(Banumathy & Subhasini, 2004) Conducted a study to determine the attitude of LIC policy
holders towards life insurance business in Virudhunagar district, In order to collect the
opinion of policyholders, a well structured questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 200
respondents randomly. They revealed that educational level, income and financial status of
the policy holders are the important factors influencing their decision to take the policy.
Most of the policyholders get the information regarding various plans through agents.
Policyholders take policies for various purposes, such as future safety, family welfare,
children education and marriage; tax benefits etc. about 10 components have been identified
to measure the level of attitude. The measurement of level of attitude clearly revealed that
most of the policy holders were satisfied with the services rendered by the LIC of India and
its agents.
3.0: Objective of Research
The main objective of the study is to understand awareness levels of policy holder’s towards
their rights, duties and terms and conditions of the life insurance in Secunderabad division.
To test the internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted for the variables it is in
the acceptable range i.e. 0.875. For the operational purpose the sub-objectives are as follows:

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3370

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

1. To study the awareness levels of policy holders about their rights and duties in
Secunderabad division.
2. To study the influence of awareness levels on purchasing of insurance policies
4.0: Research Methodology
The universe for the purpose of this study was all the policy holders of life insurance
Corporation in Secunderabad division. The adopted research was descriptive in nature under
conclusive research design. This study is confined to the policy holders of Life Insurance
Corporation of India in Secunderabad Division. There are 23 branches in operation in four
districts of (1) HYDERABAD (2) NALGONDA (3) MEDAK (4) NIZAMABAD. In the
present study, the sampling involves two stages. In the first stage, out of 23 branches, 6
branches i.e. 25 per cent are selected on random basis. The six branches are (1) BHONGIR
(2) NIZAMABAD (3) KAMAREDDY (4) SIDDIPET (5) NALGONDA (6) GUNROCK
THIRUMALGERRY SECUNDERABAD. In the second stage, by adopting quota sampling,
collecting policy holder’s responses from 336 rural and 336 urban proportionately from the
above selected branches. It is a combination of probability and non probability sampling
(Kish, 1965)1.
For this study Likerts scale was developed and five point rating scale was applied using
numerical scores ranging from 1 to 5 for questions. When using this technique it is important
to use consistent scoring therefore the responses were framed from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. In this scale higher scale denotes high agreeableness of the policy holders,
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA used as statistical tools. The study was carried out for a
period of five years from 2011 to 2016, and the primary data was collected from the policy
holders in the year 2014-2015.
5.0: Hypotheses
1. H0: There is no significant different between Age groups and Total Awareness levels
of Policy holders
2. H0: There is no significant different between Occupation groups and Total Awareness
levels of Policy holders
3. H0: There is no significant different between numbers of policies purchased by policy
holders and their Total Awareness levels.

1
Kish, Leslie, Survey Sampling, New York:1965
NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3371
 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

6.0: Data Interpretation and Analysis

Table 1: AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
STATEMENT NA SA CS A CA TOTAL
Change of mode Premium 293 89 32 164 94 672
% 43.6 13.2 4.8 24.4 14.0 100.0
Change of Nominee 260 74 38 181 119 672
% 38.7 11.0 5.7 26.9 17.7 100.0
Change of Address 241 47 34 161 189 672
% 35.9 7.0 5.1 24.0 28.1 100.0
Deposit Premium in time 37 34 33 249 319 672
% 5.5 5.1 4.9 37.1 47.5 100.0
Informing about loss of Policy 97 73 100 220 182 672
% 14.4 10.9 14.9 32.7 27.1 100.0
Informing about policy Maturity 90 76 63 264 179 672
% 13.4 11.3 9.4 39.3 26.6 100.0
Procedure in Claim Settlement 284 117 71 110 90 672
% 42.3 17.4 10.6 16.4 13.4 100.0
Amount Can be received if policy surrendered
263 116 84 127 82 672
before maturity
% 39.1 17.3 12.5 18.9 12.2 100.0
Penalty on premium is paid after due date 211 71 44 201 145 672
% 31.4 10.6 6.5 29.9 21.6 100.0
loss of insurance coverage in case of policy lapse 200 112 96 165 99 672
% 29.8 16.7 14.3 24.6 14.7 100.0
Possibility of revival of lapsed policy 213 134 59 166 100 672
% 31.7 19.9 8.8 24.7 14.9 100.0
Online payment procedure 296 98 35 127 116 672
% 44.0 14.6 5.2 18.9 17.3 100.0
Source: Primary data
NA=Not at all aware, SA=Somewhat aware, CS=Can't say, A=Aware, CA=Completely Aware
The table 1shows the awareness levels of policy holders towards their rights, duties, and
general conditions from 672 respondents. Policy holders completely aware towards deposit
premium in time 47.5% followed by change in address 28.1% and informing about loss of
policies 27.1%, they aware about informing about policy maturity 39.3%. Where as they not
at all aware of online payment procedure 44.0% followed by change of mode of premium
43.6% and procedure in claim settlement 42.3%. From the analysis it reveals that the policy
holders are more aware about their duties rather than rights and they are very poorly aware
about the procedures, terms and conditions of the insurance companies.
H0: There is no significant different between Age groups and Total Awareness levels of
Policy holders

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3372

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

Table 2: Descriptive Analysis of Total Awareness levels of Policy holders and Age
95% Confidence

Maximu
Minimu
Std.
Std. Interval for Mean

m
N Mean Deviatio
Error Lower Upper
n
Bound Bound
19.0 47.0
Below 19 Yrs 22 36.0455 6.69383 1.42713 33.0776 39.0133
0 0
12.0 60.0
19-28 Yrs 182 37.5989 11.20569 .83062 35.9600 39.2378
0 0
15.0 60.0
29-38 Yrs 174 31.7414 11.31252 .85760 30.0487 33.4341
0 0
12.0 60.0
39-48 Yrs 135 36.4296 12.53445 1.07879 34.2960 38.5633
0 0
16.0 60.0
49-58 Yrs 143 35.9510 11.38156 .95177 34.0696 37.8325
0 0
21.0 52.0
59 and above 16 32.8750 9.82429 2.45607 27.6400 38.1100
0 0
12.0 60.0
Total 672 35.3333 11.59470 .44728 34.4551 36.2116
0 0

Table 3: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.758 5 666 .119

Table 4: ANOVA
TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3503.808 5 700.762 5.383 .000
Within Groups 86703.525 666 130.185
Total 90207.333 671

Table 5: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Tukey HSD
95% Confidence
Mean
Std. Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Differenc Sig.
Error Lower Upper
e (I-J)
Bound Bound
19-28 Yrs -1.55345 2.57543 .991 -8.9141 5.8072
29-38 Yrs 4.30408 2.58180 .554 -3.0748 11.6830
Below 19 Yrs 39-48 Yrs -.38418 2.62333 1.000 -7.8817 7.1134
49-58 Yrs .09441 2.61303 1.000 -7.3737 7.5625
69 and above 3.17045 3.74888 .959 -7.5440 13.8849
Below 19 Yrs 1.55345 2.57543 .991 -5.8072 8.9141
29-38 Yrs 5.85752* 1.20975 .000 2.4000 9.3150
19-28 Yrs 39-48 Yrs 1.16927 1.29601 .946 -2.5348 4.8733
49-58 Yrs 1.64785 1.27503 .789 -1.9962 5.2919
69 and above 4.72390 2.97521 .607 -3.7794 13.2272
Below 19 Yrs -4.30408 2.58180 .554 -11.6830 3.0748
19-28 Yrs -5.85752* 1.20975 .000 -9.3150 -2.4000
29-38 Yrs
39-48 Yrs -4.68825* 1.30864 .005 -8.4284 -.9481
49-58 Yrs -4.20967* 1.28786 .014 -7.8904 -.5289

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3373

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

69 and above -1.13362 2.98074 .999 -9.6527 7.3854

Below 19 Yrs .38418 2.62333 1.000 -7.1134 7.8817
19-28 Yrs -1.16927 1.29601 .946 -4.8733 2.5348
39-48 Yrs 29-38 Yrs 4.68825* 1.30864 .005 .9481 8.4284
49-58 Yrs .47858 1.36921 .999 -3.4347 4.3918
69 and above 3.55463 3.01677 .847 -5.0674 12.1767
Below 19 Yrs -.09441 2.61303 1.000 -7.5625 7.3737
19-28 Yrs -1.64785 1.27503 .789 -5.2919 1.9962
49-58 Yrs 29-38 Yrs 4.20967* 1.28786 .014 .5289 7.8904
39-48 Yrs -.47858 1.36921 .999 -4.3918 3.4347
69 and above 3.07605 3.00782 .910 -5.5204 11.6725
Below 19 Yrs -3.17045 3.74888 .959 -13.8849 7.5440
19-28 Yrs -4.72390 2.97521 .607 -13.2272 3.7794
59 and above 29-38 Yrs 1.13362 2.98074 .999 -7.3854 9.6527
39-48 Yrs -3.55463 3.01677 .847 -12.1767 5.0674
49-58 Yrs -3.07605 3.00782 .910 -11.6725 5.5204
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
A one way analysis of variance was conducted between groups to explore the impact
of age on level of awareness of Life Insurance Policy holders. Age was categorized into six
groups table 2 (Group 1 below 19 Yrs, Group 2 19-28 Yrs, Group 3 29-38 Yrs, Group 4 39-
48 Yrs, Group 5 49-58 Yrs, Group 6 59 and above) more number of policy holders are from
19-28 Years of age .Table.3 shows the test of homogeneity of variances, Levene’s test P-
value was 0.119 which is greater than 0.05 reveals that it has not violated the assumption of
homogeneity of variance. Table.4 ANOVA test shows that there was a statistically significant
difference at the p<0.05 level for the age groups [F (5, 666) =5.383, p=0.000]. Despite of
statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between the groups was quite
small. The effect size, calculated using eta squared was 0.038. Post-hoc comparisons using he
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 2 (M=37.5989, SD=11.20569) was
significantly different from Group 3 (M=31.7414, SD=11.31252), Group 3 (M=31.7414,
SD=11.31252) was significantly different from Group 4 and 5 (M=36.4296, SD=12.53445),
(M=35.9510, SD=11.38156) , Whereas Group 1 and Group 6 (M=36.0455, SD=6.69383),
(M=32.8750, SD=9.82429) did not differ significantly from any other group. The analysis
reveals that there is a significant difference between total awareness levels and age group of
(19-28), (29-38), (39-48) and (49-58) years. Whereas there is no significant difference
between total awareness levels and age group of (19 Years below and 59 years above).
H0: There is no significant different between Occupation groups and Total Awareness
levels of Policy holders

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3374

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

Table 6: Descriptives Analysis of Total Awareness Levels and Occupation

95%
Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Illiterate 149 25.7315 8.30388 .68028 24.3872 27.0759 12.00 47.00
Up to SSC 177 32.7175 9.85344 .74063 31.2559 34.1792 12.00 52.00
Intermediate 117 37.4359 9.99861 .92437 35.6051 39.2667 15.00 60.00
Graduate 151 42.4768 9.94440 .80926 40.8778 44.0759 17.00 60.00
Professional 56 43.1607 11.39980 1.52336 40.1078 46.2136 12.00 60.00
Others 22 41.2727 9.65688 2.05885 36.9911 45.5543 28.00 59.00
Total 672 35.3333 11.59470 .44728 34.4551 36.2116 12.00 60.00

Table 7: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.531 5 666 .178

Table 8: Anova
TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 27377.841 5 5475.568 58.042 .000
Within Groups 62829.493 666 94.339
Total 90207.333 671

Table 9: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY
HOLDERS
Tukey HSD
95% Confidence
Mean
(I) Level of (J) Level of Std. Interval
Difference (I- Sig.
Education Education Error Lower Upper
J)
Bound Bound
Up to SSC -6.98597* 1.07988 .000 -10.0723 -3.8996
Intermediate -11.70435* 1.19977 .000 -15.1333 -8.2754
Illiterate Graduate -16.74528* 1.12156 .000 -19.9507 -13.5398
Professional -17.42917* 1.52242 .000 -21.7803 -13.0780
Others -15.54118* 2.21839 .000 -21.8814 -9.2009
Illiterate 6.98597* 1.07988 .000 3.8996 10.0723
Intermediate -4.71838* 1.15728 .001 -8.0259 -1.4108
Up to SSC Graduate -9.75931* 1.07599 .000 -12.8345 -6.6841
*
Professional -10.44320 1.48916 .000 -14.6993 -6.1871
Others -8.55521* 2.19570 .001 -14.8306 -2.2798
Illiterate 11.70435* 1.19977 .000 8.2754 15.1333
Up to SSC 4.71838* 1.15728 .001 1.4108 8.0259
Intermediate Graduate -5.04092* 1.19627 .000 -8.4599 -1.6219
Professional -5.72482* 1.57827 .004 -10.2356 -1.2141
Others -3.83683 2.25708 .532 -10.2877 2.6140
Illiterate 16.74528* 1.12156 .000 13.5398 19.9507
Graduate Up to SSC 9.75931* 1.07599 .000 6.6841 12.8345
Intermediate 5.04092* 1.19627 .000 1.6219 8.4599

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3375

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

Professional -.68389 1.51966 .998 -5.0271 3.6594

Others 1.20409 2.21650 .994 -5.1307 7.5389
Illiterate 17.42917* 1.52242 .000 13.0780 21.7803
Up to SSC 10.44320* 1.48916 .000 6.1871 14.6993
Professional Intermediate 5.72482* 1.57827 .004 1.2141 10.2356
Graduate .68389 1.51966 .998 -3.6594 5.0271
Others 1.88799 2.44392 .972 -5.0968 8.8728
*
Illiterate 15.54118 2.21839 .000 9.2009 21.8814
Up to SSC 8.55521* 2.19570 .001 2.2798 14.8306
Others Intermediate 3.83683 2.25708 .532 -2.6140 10.2877
Graduate -1.20409 2.21650 .994 -7.5389 5.1307
Professional -1.88799 2.44392 .972 -8.8728 5.0968
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
A one way analysis of variance was conducted between groups to explore the impact
of Occupation on level of awareness of Life Insurance Policy holders. Education was
categorized into six groups table.6 (Group 1 Illiterate, Group 2 Up to SSC, Group 3
Intermediate, Group 4 Graduate, Group 5 Professional, Group 6 Others) more number of
policy holders are studied up to SSC .Table 7 shows the test of homogeneity of variances,
Levene’s test P-value was 0.178which is greater than 0.05 reveals that it has not violated the
assumption of homogeneity of variance. Table 8 ANOVA test shows that there was a
statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level for the Occupation groups [F (5, 666)
=58.042, p=0.000]. Despite of statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores
between the groups was large. The effect size, calculated using eta squared was 0.30. Post-
hoc comparisons using he Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (M=-
25.7315, SD=8.30388) was significantly different from Group 2.3,4,5,6 (M=32.7175,
SD=9.85344), (M=37.4359, SD=9.99861), (M=42.4768, SD=9.94440), (M=43.1607,
SD=11.39980), (M=41.2727, SD=9.65688), Group 2 (M=32.7175, SD=9.85344) was
significantly different from Group 3,4,5 and 6 (M=37.4359, SD=9.99861), (M=42.4768,
SD=9.94440), (M=43.1607, SD=11.39980), (M=41.2727, SD=9.65688), Group 3
(M=37.4359, SD=9.99861), was significantly different from Group 4 and 5(M=42.4768,
SD=9.94440), (M=43.1607, SD=11.39980) Whereas Group 6 (M=41.2727, SD=9.65688)
did not differ significantly from Group 3,4,5(M=37.4359, SD=9.99861), (M=42.4768,
SD=9.94440), (M=43.1607, SD=11.39980), same way Group 4 (M=42.4768, SD=9.94440)
and Group 5 (M=43.1607, SD=11.39980), did not differ significantly. The analysis reveals
that there is a significant difference between total awareness levels and Education group
of(1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (1,5), (1,6), (2,3), (2,4), (2,5), (2,6), (3,4), (3,5). Whereas there is no
significant difference between total awareness levels and Education group of (6,3), (6,4),
(6,5),(4,5).

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3376

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

H0: There is no significant different between purchase of number of policies and Total
Awareness levels of Policy holders
Table 10: Descriptive Analysis of Total Awareness Levels and Number of Policies
95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1 288 30.9792 10.24812 .60388 29.7906 32.1678 12.00 59.00
2 187 34.2995 10.40555 .76093 32.7983 35.8006 12.00 57.00
3 124 40.2984 10.76427 .96666 38.3849 42.2118 17.00 60.00
4 or
73 46.7260 10.19431 1.19315 44.3475 49.1045 21.00 60.00
above
Total 672 35.3333 11.59470 .44728 34.4551 36.2116 12.00 60.00

Table 11: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY
HOLDERS
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
.690 3 668 .558

Table 12: ANOVA

TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 18191.748 3 6063.916 56.247 .000
Within Groups 72015.585 668 107.808
Total 90207.333 671

Table 13: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: TOTAL AWARENESS LEVELS OF POLICY HOLDERS
Tukey HSD
95% Confidence
(I) No of (J) No of Mean Difference Std. Interval
Sig.
Policies Policies (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
2 -3.32030* .97511 .004 -5.8317 -.8089
1 3 -9.31922* 1.11524 .000 -12.1915 -6.4469
4 or above -15.74686* 1.36057 .000 -19.2510 -12.2427
*
1 3.32030 .97511 .004 .8089 5.8317
2 3 -5.99892* 1.20247 .000 -9.0959 -2.9020
4 or above -12.42656* 1.43294 .000 -16.1171 -8.7360
1 9.31922* 1.11524 .000 6.4469 12.1915
3 2 5.99892* 1.20247 .000 2.9020 9.0959
4 or above -6.42764* 1.53174 .000 -10.3727 -2.4826
1 15.74686* 1.36057 .000 12.2427 19.2510
4 or above 2 12.42656* 1.43294 .000 8.7360 16.1171
*
3 6.42764 1.53174 .000 2.4826 10.3727
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3377

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

A one way analysis of variance was conducted between groups to explore the impact
of Purchase of number of policies on level of awareness of Life Insurance Policy holders.
Policies taken was categorized into four groups table 10 (Group 1 1, Group 2 2, Group 3 3,
Group 4 4 or above) more number of policy holders are taken single policy only .Table 11
shows the test of homogeneity of variances, Levene’s test P-value was 0.558which is greater
than 0.05 reveals that it has not violated the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Table 12
ANOVA test shows that there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05 level for
the Occupation groups [F (3, 668) =56.247, p=0.000]. Despite of statistical significance, the
actual difference in mean scores between the groups was quite large. The effect size,
calculated using eta squared was 0.20. Post-hoc comparisons using he Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score for Group 1,2,3 and 4 are significantly different from each
group(M=-25.7315,SD=10.24812),(M=-34.2995,SD=10.40555),(M=40.2984,SD=10.76427),
(M=-46.7260, SD=10.19431). The analysis reveals that there is a significant difference
between total awareness levels and number of policies purchased by the policy holders.
7.0: Findings
 From the analysis it reveals that the policy holders are more aware about their duties
rather than rights and they are very poorly aware about the procedures, terms and
conditions of the insurance companies.
 The analysis concludes that there is a significant difference between total awareness
levels and age group of (19-28), (29-38), (39-48) and (49-58) years. Whereas there is no
significant difference between total awareness levels and age group of (19 Years below
and 59 years above).
 The analysis concludes that there is a significant difference between total awareness
levels and Education group of(1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (1,5), (1,6), (2,3), (2,4), (2,5), (2,6),
(3,4), (3,5). Whereas there is no significant difference between total awareness levels
and Occupation group of (6,3), (6,4), (6,5),(4,5).
 The analysis concludes that there is a significant difference between total awareness
levels and number of policies purchased by the policy holders.
8.0: Suggestions
 As the policy holders are more aware about their duties rather than their rights and
procedures, the LIC has to take initiation to aware the policy holders with regard to
their rights.

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3378

 SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ S. SURESH & DR. RAMBABU GOPISETTI (3369-3379)

 As per the study low age group policy holders are less aware about life insurance, there
is a dire need to aware them about the importance of life insurance.
 As there is significance difference between education and awareness of Life Insurance
policies, the company should try to increase awareness among the policy holders who
has studied up to SSC Level.
 More number of policy holders are taken single policy only, the company should
educate them the importance of taking more number of policies.
9.0: References
Banumathy, S., & Subhasini, M. (2004). Attitude of Policyholders towards Life Insurance Business in
Virudhunagar,. The Insurance Times , XXIV (7), 25-28.
Bodla, B. S., & Verma, S. R. (2007). Life insurance policies in Rural Area: Understanding Buyer
Behavior. The Icfai Journal of Servic Marketing, , 5 (4).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Kish, Leslie, Survey Sampling, New York: 1965
Kumar, V. (2012). A contemporary study of factors influencing urban and rural consumers for buying
different life insurance policies in Haryana. Maharhi Dayanand University, Commerce,
Rohtak.
Ranjan Jayakant, S., & Manish M, P. (2011). A study on factors affecting to buying decision of life
insurance policy (With special reference to Surat city of Gujarat in India). Global Journal of
Arts and Management , 1 (3).
NCAER. (2011). Pre-launch Survey Report of Insurance Awareness Campaign. IRDA. New Delhi:
NCAER.
www.irdai.gov.in
www.lifeincouncil.org
www.licindia.in

NOV-DEC 2016, VOL-4/27 www.srjis.com Page 3379