The impact of service quality on customer satisfaction; an empirical study

International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2020, pp. 76–88, Article ID: IJM_11_03_009
Available online at />Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1471 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
© IAEME Publication

Scopus Indexed

THE IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; AN EMPIRICAL
STUDY
Joshy K T
Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies,
Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Dr.F.J. Peterkumar
Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies,
Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Sunil Vakayil
Director, RVS Institute of Management Studies and Research,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
ABSTRACT
Customer satisfaction is viewed as an end rather than a means, as far as
organizational goals are concerned. This is because ensuring customer satisfaction will
automatically end up with achievement of organizational objectives. Many management
writers consider service quality as the most important factor determining customer
satisfaction. This research study attempts to find out the impact of the quality of service
on the satisfaction level of customers in the public sector General Insurance companies
in Cochin. The required data is collected from the customers of these companies in
Cochin. The study reveals that the employee service quality of public sector General
Insurance companies in Cochin has a significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction. The study recommends improvement in quality of service in organizations

to ensure higher level of satisfaction among customers.
Key words: Customer satisfaction, organizational goals, Public Sector General
Insurance, service quality.
Cite this Article: Joshy K T, Dr.F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil, The Impact of
Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study, International Journal of
Management (IJM), 11 (3), 2020, pp. 76–88.
/>
/>
76




Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of any organization will be to build up a happy customer base because it will ultimately
lead them to the attainment of organizational goal. One of most important factors that contribute
to the customer satisfaction is the quality of service of the employees. Service quality is a
perception from the customer’s side about the quality of service received by them. Parasuraman
et.al (1985) says that service quality is the difference between expected and actual service
received and observes that when the former improves, the latter also goes up. The impact of
employee’s service quality on customer satisfaction has been a topic of discussion among
organizational heads in the past many decades. Today the organizations give the highest priority
for service quality as they know that it is the ultimate method to increase their customer’s
satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Parasuraman et.al (1985) compared the customer’s expected and actual service using
SERVQUAL developed by them. As per their paper published in 1988, service quality

dimensions are Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy. Olu ojo et.al
(2010) in their study found that service quality showed a significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction. Mohsin Zafar et.al (2011) found that service quality had a very significant effect
on customer satisfaction. Van Dinh et.al (2012) studied the effect of service quality on the
satisfaction level of customers and found that service quality is positively related to customer
satisfaction. Jasmina Lumanaj et.al (2013) in their study observed that service quality positively
affects competitive edge and relations with the clients. Rahhal et.al (2015) in their study of
relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customer retention found that
the service quality dimensions other than empathy has significant influence on customer
satisfaction whereas empathy has insignificant relation. Minh et.al (2015) found that
dimensions other than tangibility had significant impact on the satisfaction level of customers.
Al-Azzam et.al (2015) observed that better is the service quality, higher is the customer
satisfaction. Kumar et.al (2019) made a study on the impact of service quality on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty. The study has found that service quality has a positive impact
on customer satisfaction. Sukhvinder Singh Paposa et.al (2019) studied the impact of service
quality on customer satisfaction in Life Insurance Industry in India. The study revealed that all
the service quality factors has significant positive influence on customer’s satisfaction.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
•
•
•

To examine the impact of service quality factors and customer satisfaction on
demographic factors of customers.
To analyze the relationship between the service quality and customer satisfaction.
To study the impact of service quality factors on customer satisfaction.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The target population of this study is the customers of the four public sector General Insurance

companies in Cochin City in Kerala. A detailed questionnaire for collecting data from
customers is prepared. The service quality questions are based on SERVQUAL developed by
Parasuraman et.al (1988). The factors on which these questions are based upon are tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Part 1 of the questionnaire has 8
demographic questions and Part 2 has 25 service quality questions and 10 customer satisfactions
questions. The responses to the part 2 questions are based on 5-point Likert scale.

/>
77




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

5. DATA COLLECTION
Convenience sampling is used to select samples. The questionnaire was prepared in Google
Form were sent through e-mails/WhatsApp to 300 customers of Public sector General Insurance
customers in the city of Cochin. The Google Form survey was made open from 1st of August
to 31st October 2019. Fully completed forms received from customers were 81.

6. ANALYSIS OF DATA
6.1. RELIABILITY
Cronbach Alpha value for Tangibility (TAN), Reliability (REL), Responsiveness (RES),
Assurance (ASS), Empathy (EMP), Satisfaction (SAT) are 0.818, 0.868, 0.865, 0.796, 0.848
and 0.913. Since the values are above 0.7, it is inferred that the constructs and questionnaire are
reliable.

6.2. SOCIO- ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CUSTOMERS
TABLE 1- SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CUSTOMERS

PROFILE VARIABLE

Company

Policy Type

Occupation

Age

Gender
Marital Status

Qualification

Experience with company

GROUPS
New India
United India
National
Oriental
Fire
Motor
Health
Personal Accident
Shop
Self-employed
Salaried
Retired

Up to 30 years
31 to 40 years
41 to 50 years
51 to 60 years
Above 60
Male
Female
Unmarried
Married
Below 10
Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
One year
2 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
Above 10

FREQUENCY
22
20
18
21
5
47
22
6
1
32

37
12
16
20
20
12
13
58
23
10
71
3
14
47
17
9
17
29
11
15

%
27.2
24.7
22.2
25.9
6.2
58.0
27.2
7.4

1.2
39.5
45.7
14.8
19.8
24.7
24.7
14.8
16.0
71.6
28.4
12.3
87.7
3.7
17.3
58.0
21.0
11.1
21.0
35.8
13.6
18.5

Source: Primary data

/>
78

Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil
The above percentage analysis shows that 27.2% of respondents are from New India
Insurance which is the highest followed by Oriental Insurance with 25.9%, United India
Insurance with 24.7% and National Insurance with 22.2%. Motor policy customers are the
highest with 58% followed by health policy with 27.2%, Pers Accident insurance with 7.4%,
Fire insurance with 6.2% and Shop insurance with 1.2%. Regarding occupation of customers
salaried class is the highest with 45.7% followed by self-employed with 39.5% and retired
people with 14.8%. Highest percentage of respondents are from the age group of 31-40 and 4150 with 24.7% each followed by up to 30 with 19.8%, above 60 with 16% and 51-60 with
14.8%. Highest number of respondents are male with 71.6% and females are 28.4%. 87% are
married and 12.3 are unmarried. Regarding qualification of the respondents, the highest
percentage is graduates with 58% followed by Postgraduates with 21%, undergraduates 17.3%
and below 10 with 3.7%. Regarding insurance experience 35% are having 4-6 years’ experience
followed by 2-3 with 21%, above 10 with 18.5%, 7-10 with 13.6% and 1year 11.1%.

6.3. GENDER INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their gender.
H1 = There is significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their gender.
Since the respondents belong to only two groups, Z-test is used to find out whether there
are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering their gender.
TABLE 2 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON GENDER
CONSTRUCTS GENDER
Male
TAN
Female

Male
REL
Female
Male
RES
Female
Male
ASS
Female
Male
EMP
Female
Male
SAT
Female

MEAN
18.1034
17.6957
17.7586
18.0435
16.7719
17.2609
17.4828
17.9565
17.1724
17.8696
34.8276
35.5217

ZO

SIGNIFICANCE

REMARK

0.559

0.578

Not Significant

0.314

0.754

Not Significant

0.571

0.569

Not Significant

0.616

0.540

Not Significant

0.871

0.386

Not Significant

0.465

0.643

Not Significant

Source: Primary data

6.3. INFLUENCE OF MARITAL STATUS ON THE CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their marital status.

/>
79




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering their marital status.
Since the respondents belong to only two groups, Z-test is used to find out whether there is

any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions
considering their marital status.
TABLE 3 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS

CONSTRUCTS MARITAL STATUS MEAN
ZO
SIG.
REMARK
TAN
Unmarried
18.1000 0.128 0.899
Not Significant
Married
17.9718
REL
Unmarried
17.4000 0.430 0.668
Not Significant
Married
17.9014
RES
Unmarried
16.5556 0.328 0.742
Not Significant
Married
16.9577
ASS
Unmarried
16.5000 1.218 0.227
Not Significant

Married
17.7746
EMP
Unmarried
16.5000 0.906 0.368
Not Significant
Married
17.4930
SATS
Unmarried
33.7000 0.741 0.461
Not Significant
Married
35.2113
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering their marital status.

6.4. INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENCE IN COMPANIES ON CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different companies.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different companies.
Since the respondents belong to four company groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find
out whether there is any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service

quality dimensions who are of different companies.
TABLE 4 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON INSURANCE COMPANY
CONSTRUCTS

TAN

INSURANCE
COMPANY
New India
United India
National
Oriental
New India

/>
MEAN

F

19.2273
17.0500
18.4444
2.806
17.1905
19.1364

80

SIGNIFICANCE

REMARK

0.445

Not Significant

0.124

Not Significant




Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil

CONSTRUCTS
REL

RES

ASS

EMP

SAT

INSURANCE
COMPANY
United India
National

Oriental
New India
United India
National
Oriental
New India
United India
National
Oriental
New India
United India
National
Oriental
New India
United India
National
Oriental

MEAN

F

SIGNIFICANCE

REMARK

16.7500
18.3333
17.0952
18.5909

15.9500
16.8889
16.0500
18.5909
16.4500
18.2778
17.1429
19.0909
17.3500
16.3333
16.4762
37.8636
33.2000
35.7222
33.1905

1.978

2.860

0.428

Not Significant

2.186

0.096

Not Significant

3.515

0.452

Not Significant

0.067

Not Significant

3.218

Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who are of different companies.

6.5. INFLUENCE OF CCUPATION ON CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different occupation.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who
are of different occupation.
Since the respondents belong to three groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions who are of different occupation.
TABLE 5 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON OCCUPATION

CONSTRUCTS OCCUPATION
Self employed
Salaried
TAN
Retired
Self employed
REL
Salaried

/>
MEAN
F
SIGNIFICANCE
REMARK
17.9375
18.1081 0.073
0.930
Not Significant
17.7500
17.5000
Not Significant
0.502
18.3514 0.696

81




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

CONSTRUCTS OCCUPATION
Retired
Self employed
Salaried
RES
Retired
Self employed
Salaried
ASS
Retired
Self employed
Salaried
EMP
Retired
Self employed
Salaried
SATS
Retired

MEAN
17.1667
16.6563
17.5405
15.5455
17.3750
18.1351
16.6667
17.2188
17.7027
16.7500

34.9063
35.8919

F

SIGNIFICANCE

REMARK

1.588

0.211

Not Significant

1.177

0.314

Not Significant

0.443

0.644

Not Significant

1.320

0.273

Not Significant

32.6667

Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction who are of different occupation.

6.6. INFLUENCE OF AGE OF CUSTOMERS ON CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in age groups.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in age groups.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there is any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in age groups.
TABLE 6- CLASSIFICATION BASED ON AGE
CONSTRUCTS
AGE
MEAN
F
SIGNIFICANCE
REMARK
Up to 30 years 18.3750

31 to 40 years 17.9500
TAN
41 to 50 years 17.4500 0.457 0.767
Not Significant
51 to 60 years 18.7500
Above 60

17.6923

Up to 30 years 17.3125
REL

31 to 40 years

18.8000

41 to 50 years

17.3000

51 to 60 years

18.6667

/>
82

0.822 0.515

Not Significant

Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil
Above 60

17.0769

Up to 30 years 16.8000
RES

31 to 40 years

17.8000

41 to 50 years

17.4000 1.388 0.246

Not Significant

51 to 60 years 16.7500
Above 60
15.0769
Up to 30 years 16.8750
ASS

31 to 40 years

18.3500

41 to 50 years

17.7500

0.891

0.473

Not Significant

31 to 40 years

18.2500

41 to 50 years

17.4500 0.630 0.642

Not Significant

51 to 60 years 18.1667
Above 60
16.6923
Up to 30 years 17.1875
EMP

51 to 60 years 16.8333
Above 60

16.6154
Up to 30 years 34.1875
SAT

31 to 40 years

36.6000

41 to 50 years

35.0000 0.999 0.413

Not Significant

51 to 60 years 36.0833
Above 60
32.6923
Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering the difference in their age
groups.

6.7. INFLUENCE OF QUALIFICATION ON CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in the qualification.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality

dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in qualification of customers.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in qualification of customers.

/>
83




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study
TABLE 7 – CLASSIFICATION BASED ON QUALIFICATION
CONSTRUCTS

TAN

REL

RES

ASS

EMP

SAT

QUALIFICATION
Below10

Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
Below10
Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
Below 10
Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
Below 10
Under
graduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
Below 10
Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above
Below 10
Undergraduate
Graduate
Postgraduate and above

MEAN
17.6667
18.3571
17.8298
18.1765

17.0000
18.0714
17.8298
17.8235
19.0000
17.0000
16.3830
17.9412
20.3333
17.5714
17.4255
17.7059
17.0000
17.5000
17.2340
17.7059
38.0000
35.0714
34.6809
35.4118

F

SIGNIFICANCE

REMARK

0.148

0.930

0.069

0.976

Not Significant

1.254

0.296

Not Significant

0.823

0.485

0.105

0.957

0.311

0.818

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not Significant

Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be observed that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05, and hence
the Null hypothesis is acceptable.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the customer perceptions
on service quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and
Satisfaction considering the difference in qualification of customers.

6.8. INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE ON CONSTRUCTS
H0 = There is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality dimensions
Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction considering the
difference in experience of the customers.
H1 = There is significant difference in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction
considering the difference in experience of the customers.
Since the respondents belong to five groups, One-Way ANOVA is used to find out whether
there are any statically significant differences in the customer perceptions on service quality
dimensions considering the difference in experience of customers.

/>
84




Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil
TABLE 8 - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPERIENCE

CONSTRUCTS EXPERIENCE
One year
2 to 3 years
TAN
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
Above 10
One year
2 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
REL
7 to 10 years
Above 10
One year
2 to 3 years
RES
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
Above 10
One year
2 to 3 years
ASS
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
Above 10
One year
2 to 3 years
EMP
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years

Above 10
One year
2 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
SAT
7 to 10 years
Above 10

MEAN
18.1111
18.4118
17.5517
17.8182
18.4000
16.8889
18.0588
17.3793
18.4545
18.6000
15.8889
17.9375
16.3448
16.9091
17.5333
17.0000
17.9412
17.1034
17.9091
18.4000
16.3333

16.8235
17.5862
18.2727
17.5333
33.6667
35.9412
34.1724
35.6364
36.0000

F

SIGNIFICANCE

0.322

0.863

0.508

0.730

REMARK

Not Significant

Not Significant

0.863

0.490
Not Significant

0.582

0.676

Not Significant

0.593
0.668

Not Significant

0.472
0.756

Not Significant

Source: Primary data
From the above table it may be noted that for Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction, the significance values are greater than 0.05. Therefore,
it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the customer perceptions on service
quality dimensions Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and
Satisfaction considering the difference in qualification of customers.

6.9. INTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIABLES
Correlation analysis is done between the variables Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy and Satisfaction to find the inter relationship between them. The following
table shows the correlation between all the constructs under study.

/>
85




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study
TABLE 9 - INTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIABLES
TAN
Pearson Correlation
TAN
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
REL
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
RES
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
ASS
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
EMP
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Pearson Correlation
SAT
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
81

REL

RES

ASS

.649(**) .589(**) .679(**)
0.000
0.000
0.000
81
81
81
1
.705(**) .762(**)
0.000
0.000
81
81
1
.803(**)
0.000

81
1
1

EMP

SAT

.606(**)
0.000
81
.661(**)
0.000
81
.643(**)
0.000
80
.622(**)
0.000
81
1

.797(**)
0.000
81
.834(**)
0.000
81
.878(**)
0.000

80
.918(**)
0.000
81
.747(**)
0.000
81
1

Source: Primary data
• The following observations are made from the correlation table, values inside the
brackets represent correlation co-efficient.
• Tangible is significantly and positively correlated with Reliability (0.649),
Responsiveness (0.589), Assurance (0.679), Empathy (0.606) and Satisfaction
(0.797).
• Reliability is significantly and positively correlated with Responsiveness (0.705),
Assurance (0.762), Empathy (0.661) and Satisfaction (0.834).
• Responsiveness is significantly and positively correlated with Assurance (0.803),
Empathy (0.643) and Satisfaction (0.878).
• Assurance is significantly and positively correlated with Empathy (0.622) and
Satisfaction (0.918).
• Empathy is significantly and positively correlated with Satisfaction (0.747).

6.10. MULTIPLE REGRESSION
The H0: Employee service quality has no significant positive impact on customer satisfaction
of public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.
H1: Employee service quality has significant positive impact on customer satisfaction of
public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.

/>

86




Joshy K T, Dr. F.J. Peterkumar and Sunil Vakayil
TABLE 10 - COEFFICIENTS
UNSTANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS
MODEL
B
STD. ERROR
CON
-1.574
0.963
TAN
0.464
0.070
REL
0.225
0.066
1
RES
0.495
0.074
ASS
0.703
0.091
EMP
0.202

0.064
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS
BETA
0.229
0.137
0.286
0.360
0.110

T

SIG.

-1.635
6.604
3.404
6.696
7.693
3.164

0.106
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002

Source: Primary data
Substituting the values, Customer satisfaction = (-)1.574(Constant) +0.464 (Tangibility)
+0.225(Reliability) +0.495(Responsiveness) +0.703(Assurance) +0.202(Empathy).
The inference drawn is customer satisfaction increases by one unit when Tangibility
increase by 0.464 units, Reliability increase by 0.225, Responsiveness increases by 0.495,
Assurance increase by 0.703 and Empathy increase 0.202. Since the significance value is less
than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. Hence it is
concluded that Employee service quality has significant positive impact on customer
satisfaction of public sector General Insurance companies in Cochin city.

7. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
It is observed that the five dimensions of service quality under study (Tangibility, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) have a positive correlation with customer
satisfaction. The regression analysis shows that all the dimensions of service quality,
significantly and positively impacts customer satisfaction. I.e. when there is an increase in the
service quality, the customer satisfaction significantly increases in the same direction. From the
result of the analysis, it can be inferred that service quality of Public Sector General Insurance
companies in Cochin City is positively correlated with the customer satisfaction of these
companies. Similarly, service quality significantly impacts the customer satisfaction of the
companies.

8. CONCLUSION
The study reveals the following:
• Service quality factors have a positive relation with Customer satisfaction
• Employee’s service quality significantly and positively impacts customer
satisfaction which means that when the service quality of employees improves the
level of satisfaction of customers correspondingly improves.
Based on the findings, it is concluded that by bringing improvement in the service quality
of the employees, the organizations can enhance the level of customer satisfaction among their
customers. Hence it is recommended that the organizations should strive hard for bringing

improvements in the quality of service of their employees in order to keep their customers
happy which will in turn help them to achieve their organizational goals.

/>
87




The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction; an Empirical Study

REFERENCE
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry. A. Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing. 49(3), 1985, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, LL, “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service quality”. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1) 1988, pp. 56.
Ojo, O. The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the
Telecommunication Industry: Evidence from Nigeria. Brand Research in Accounting,
Negotiation and Distribution, 1(1), 2010, pp.88–100.
Mohsin Zafar. Impact of online service quality on customer satisfaction in banking sector of
Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 2011, pp. 11786-11793.
Van Dinh and Lee Pickler. Examining Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Retail
Banking Sector in Vietnam. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 11(4), 2012, pp.199-214.
Jasmina Lumanaj, Aulent Guri, Armend Aliu, Otjela Lubonja, “Quality of Service in the
Banking Sector”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 4 (9), October 2013. Pp.418-424
Rahhal, W. The Effects of Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical
Investigation in Syrian Mobile Telecommunication Services. International Journal of Business
and Management Invention, 4(5), 2015, 2319–8028.
Minh, N.H., Thu Ha, N., Chi Anh, P., Matsui, Y, Service quality and customer satisfaction: A
case study of hotel industry in Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 11(10), 2015, pp.73–85.
Al-Azzam, A. F. M. The Impact of Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction: A

Field Study of Arab Bank in Irbid City, Jordan. European Journal of Business and Management
Online), 7(15), 2015, pp. 2222–2839.
Kumar, K., Rai, S., & Dugar, A. Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction and
Loyalty in the Sector of Telecom Service Provider in Delhi-NCR. International Journal of
Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(8), 2019, pp. 2841–2846.
Paposa, S.S., Ukinkar, V. G., & Paposa, K. K. Service quality and customer satisfaction:
Variation in customer perception across demographic profiles in life insurance industry.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(10), 2019,
pp.3767–3775.
P.S. Prema Kumar and Dr. G. Rambabu, Fuzzy Service Quality Evaluation of Health Care
Sectors, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 10(4),
2019, pp. 135-139
Parul Gupta and R.K. Srivastava, Analysis of Customer Satisfaction in Hotel Service Quality
Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp), International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 2 Issue 1, May – October (2011), pp. 59-68
A. Ramaraju, Impact Of Technology on Productivity and Service Quality among Indian Airline
Services, International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),
Volume 5, Issue 1, January – February (2014), pp. 42-51
R. Ramachandran and Dr. S. Sekar, a Study on Technology and Banking Service Quality in
Tiruchirappalli, International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management
(IJMHRM), Volume 5, Issue 6, November – December (2014), pp. 07-17
Vibha, Abhay Shetty, B. Giridhar Kamath and Gopala Krishna. B, A System Dynamics Model
For Forecasting Service Quality, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology, 9(8), 2018, pp. 326–338.
Nur Hayati and Desi Novitasari, an Analysis of Tourism Service Quality toward Customer
Satisfaction (Study on Tourists in Indonesia Travel Destinations to Bali). International Journal
of Marketing and Human Resource Management, 8(2), 2017, pp. 09–20.

/>
88