The service quality of any organisation is very important for its reputation as well as for its success. There the organization is hospital in which service quality is the most significant feature. Today’s organizations need to be suppler to equip with modern instruments and techniques so that the patients and their attended has satisfied with their treatment. Therefore, hospitals are required to adopt a strategy to improve the quality to satisfy both the needs and comfort of people. The term quality refers to the favourableness' or unfavourableness environment for people. The main aim of this study is to know people’s expectation and perception towards service quality of hospitals of Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities. For this purpose service quality is measured by servqual with parameters: tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The sample size for this study was 300 and primary data was collected from people of Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities. This study revealed the understanding of people towards service quality of public and private hospitals in different parameters like physical appearance of hospital, their staff, material associated with the service (such as reports etc), equipment used in treatment, time of the different services or treatments, error free records, solving peoples problem and showing concern for the patients and their attended. From this study hospital management should know more about the needs and expectations of the peoples and kaizen their services.

1. Service quality of hospitals with special reference to Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities
Dr.Rishi Dubey, Director M.I.M Ujjain
Harsha Rathore, Research Scholar
Abstract: The service quality of any organisation is very important for its reputation as well as
for its success. There the organization is hospital in which service quality is the most significant
feature. Today’s organizations need to be suppler to equip with modern instruments and
techniques so that the patients and their attended has satisfied with their treatment. Therefore,
hospitals are required to adopt a strategy to improve the quality to satisfy both the needs and
comfort of people. The term quality refers to the favourableness' or unfavourableness
environment for people. The main aim of this study is to know people’s expectation and
perception towards service quality of hospitals of Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities. For this
purpose service quality is measured by servqual with parameters: tangible, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The sample size for this study was 300 and primary
data was collected from people of Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities. This study revealed the
understanding of people towards service quality of public and private hospitals in different
parameters like physical appearance of hospital, their staff, material associated with the service
(such as reports etc), equipment used in treatment, time of the different services or treatments,
error free records, solving peoples problem and showing concern for the patients and their
attended. From this study hospital management should know more about the needs and
expectations of the peoples and kaizen their services.
Keywords: Hospitals, service quality, perception, expectation
Introduction:
The basic need of every human is Health. If a person is healthy then he is wealthy. Health is
directly or indirectly related to hospital. Hospital is a place where every human being goes once
or more time in their life.Hospital is also known as Health care centres where people get their
health through products and services provided by hospital. A hospital is a health care institution
providing patient treatment with specialised staff and equipment.
The hospital is a unique institution of man. A WHO Expert Committee in 1963 proposed the
following working definition of a hospital. “A hospital is a residential establishment which
provides short –term and long term medical care consisting of observational, diagnostic,
therapeutic and rehabilitative services for persons suffering or suspected to be suffering from
a disease or injury and for parturient. It may or may not also provide services for ambulatory
patients on an outpatient basis”.
As times flies away need and wants of body changes due to changing environment and other
climatic conditions. Every day the world is dealing with the new type of diseases. Before
independence peoples were treated by individuals by medicinal properties of plants and herbs.
These properties of plants and herbs were passed from one generation to another. Also medical
treatment was identified with religious services and ceremonies. Priests (vaidya) of temples
and Fathers of church play the role of doctor, ministering to spirits, mind and body. Earlier
there is no place like hospitals, patients were treated at their home and the temple/hospital was
also a meeting place. In this study, two cities has been taken for the measurement of service
quality of hospitals.

2. Literature Review:
The hospitals also qualify the definitions of services given by Sir Beverdge. According to him,
services refer to social efforts including government to fight five giant evils. Want, Disease,
Ignorance, Squalor and Illness in the society. The definition provided by Prof. A.V.S. Rao in
Dr. T. Sreenivas, “Services can also be defined as a human effort which provides succour to
the needy. It may be food to a hungry person, water to a thirsty person, medical services to an
ailing one and education to a student, loan to a farmer, transport to a consumer, communication
aid to two persons who want to share a thought, pleasure or pain” is also relevant to the hospital
organization. In view of the definition given by Yakeshel Hasenfield, as action(s) of
organization(s) that maintain and improve the well-being and functioning of people, we notice
that efforts of hospitals are directed towards maintaining and improving the well-being of the
persons who come to the hospital for any reason whatsoever.
The SANBS customers are not satisfied with the service they receive, both on a zone
(geographical) perspective and also on a customer group perspective. Expectations of private
hospitals and rural state hospitals have higher ratings than those of urban state hospitals
(Mququ 2005). Narang (2010) applied 20-item scale and distributed to 500 users of health care
centers comprising a tertiary health center, a state medical university and two missionary
hospitals in Lucknow, India. The scale was found to be reliable to a great extent with an overall
Cronbach alpha value of 0.74. “Health personnel and practices” and “health care delivery”
were found to be statistically significant in impacting the perception. Respondents were
relatively less positive on items related to “access to services” and “adequacy of doctors for
women”. The tertiary health center was rated poorer than the medical university and missionary
hospitals. Policy makers need to consider the requirements and opinions of patients to effect
substantial change and significant improvement in the quality of their health care services for
better and increased utilization of their services. The access to health care services requires
immediate and urgent attention from the policy makers. In addition, they need to improve upon
the number of rooms, reception and follow-up facility along with availability of drugs and
doctors for women. This tool may be applied for qualitative assessment of the services of health
care programmes as well as health care centres of India.
The follow-up survey in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Bihar and Jharkhand. Dimensions include:
service proximity, doctor availability, waiting time, medicines, facility cleanliness, dignified
treatment, privacy, service affordability and treatment effectiveness. Findings indicated that
doctor availability, waiting time, cleanliness, privacy and affordability at private health
facilities enhance the probability that a health facility will be used for any reproductive health
purpose. Their findings indicated that doctor availability, waiting time, cleanliness, privacy and
affordability enhance private reproductive health service use at the combined four state level.
At the combined states, medicine availability and treatment effectiveness at public health
facilities enhances use. It appeared from their findings that service quality norms were not
properly established in any Indian public or private systems (Anand 2010). Natarajan (2011),
reveals that Gujarat has a socio-economic environment which is conducive to achieve these
goals. Significant gains have been made in improving the health care indicators in the State by
increasing financial support, a planned approach to improve the health care system and
involvement of all stakeholders to attain the desired goals.
Research Methodology
Thus, this study finds the service quality of hospitals in Ahmedabad and Ujjain city. The type
of services provided by the hospitals provides better health care while satisfying and delighting
the patients. The study especially aims at the following objectives:

3. 1. To study the place-wise expectation and perception of people towards service quality of
hospitals.
2. To study the expectation and perception of people towards service quality of hospitals
Hypothesis: On the basis of above objectives following hypothesis have been formed.
H01: There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people
of Ahmedabad towards service quality of hospitals.
H01.1: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ahmedabad towards ‘Tangible’ service quality of hospitals.
H01.2: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ahmedabad towards ‘Reliability’ service quality of hospitals.
H01.3: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ahmedabad towards ‘Responsiveness’ service quality of hospitals.
H01.4: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ahmedabad towards ‘Assurance’ service quality of hospitals.
H01.5: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ahmedabad towards ‘Empathy’ service quality of hospitals.
H02: There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people
of Ujjain towards service quality of hospitals.
H02.1: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ujjain towards ‘Tangible’ service quality of hospitals.
H02.2: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ujjain towards ‘Reliability’ service quality of hospitals.
H02.3: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ujjain towards ‘Responsiveness’ service quality of hospitals.
H02.4: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ujjain towards ‘Assurance’ service quality of hospitals.
H02.5: -There is no significance difference between the expectation and perception of people of
Ujjain towards ‘Empathy’ service quality of hospitals.
H03: -There is no significance difference between the expectations of people of Ahmedabad
and Ujjain towards service quality of hospitals.
H03.1: -There is no significance difference between the expectations of people of Ahmedabad
and Ujjain towards ‘Tangible’ service quality of hospitals.
H03.2: -There is no significance difference between the expectation of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Reliability’ service quality of hospitals.
H03.3: -There is no significance difference between the expectation of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Responsiveness’ service quality of hospitals.

4. H03.4: -There is no significance difference between the expectation of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Assurance’ service quality of hospitals.
H03.5: -There is no significance difference between the expectation of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Empathy’ service quality of hospitals.
H04: -There is no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad
and Ujjain towards service quality of hospitals.
H04.1: -Thereis no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Tangible’ service quality of hospitals.
H04.2: -Thereis no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Reliability’ service quality of hospitals.
H04.3: -Thereis no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Responsiveness’ service quality of hospitals.
H04.4: -Thereis no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Assurance’ service quality of hospitals.
H04.5: -Thereis no significance difference between the perceptions of people of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards ‘Empathy’ service quality of hospitals.
The Sample:
Sampling Unit:
The universe of the study consists of peoples of Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities. Sampling Unit
was the peoples who came in Ahmedabad and Ujjain cities hospitals.
Sampling Size:
The sample size planned to be n = 300 respondents. Initially 320 questionnaire were distributed
out of which 159 from Ahmedabad and 161 from Ujjain were received back. Nine
questionnaire from Ahmedabad and eleven questionnaire from Ujjain have been randomly
selected end eliminated to make sample 300 (150 each from Ahmedabad and Ujjain).
Sampling Method:
Simple random sampling method was adopted for the study.
The Tool for Data Collection:
The data for the study had collected through a well-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire
consists of statements relating to expectation and perception of service quality of hospitals. The
questionnaire consists of three parts A, B and C. Part-A consists of demographic variables like
Age, Gender, Qualification, Occupation, Type of hospitals, Category of treatment and number
of visits etc.
The Part-B of questionnaire consists of the level of Expectation and Part-C consists of
Perception regarding Service Quality of Hospitals. The variables were grouped under five
dimensions of SERVQUAL such as –Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and
Empathy. Each factor consists of four to five statements. Likert Scale was used in the
questionnaires. All Respondents were asked to rank their choices ranging from 1 to 5 for each

5. major factor, where 1 is the ‘Strongly Agree’, 2 is ‘Agree’, 3 is ‘Can’t Say’, 4 is ‘Disagree’, 5
is ‘Strongly Disagree’.
Tools for Analysis:
Z-Test is used for the analysis of data.
Where as
=mean of the sample one
= mean of the sample two
μ 1 = Hypothesized mean for sample one
μ 2 = Hypothesized mean for sample two
σ 1 = Standard deviations of sample one
σ 2 = Standard deviations of sample two
n 1 = Number of respondent for sample one
n 2 = Number of respondent for sample two
Standard value of Z= 1.96.
Data Analysis and Interpretation:
Place-wise analysis
Exhibit:1
TESTING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS AND
PERCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE OF AHMEDABAD TOWARDS SERVICE QUALITY OF
THE HOSPITALS
Sub
Hypot
heses
Parameters Expectations Perceptions Z-
Value
5%
Level
of
Signif
icanc
e
Results
Mean Std
Dev
Mean Std
Dev
H01.1 Tangibles 1.9933 0.7577 2.195 0.8803 2.1264 1.96
Not
Accepted
H01.2 Reliability 2.2066 0.8746 2.422 1.0796 1.9039 1.96 Accepted
H01.3
Responsivene
ss 2.2716 0.8770 2.523 1.0022 2.3144 1.96
Not
Accepted

6. H01.4 Assurance 2.195 0.8295 2.461 0.9309 2.6192 1.96
Not
Accepted
H01.5 Empathy 2.3106 0.9616 2.606 1.0545 2.5401 1.96
Not
Accepted
Testing the level of significance between the expectations and perceptions of people of
Ahmedabad towards service quality of the hospitals:
Exhibit: 1, shows that H01.2 has been accepted and H01.1, H01.3, H01.4 and H01.5 have not
been accepted.
Based on the results of the sample z-test analysis at 5% level of confidence, there is not any
significant difference between the expectations and perceptions of Ahmedabad people towards
the service quality parameters viz. Tangible, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy. The
result differs in Reliability parameter. Hence sub hypothesis H01.1, H01.3, H01.4 and H01.5
have not been rejected and H01.2 has been accepted. It also shows that there is a level of
dissatisfaction of peoples of Ahmedabad towards the service quality of hospitals. Result shows
that there is huge difference between the expectation and perception of people.
In Ahmedabad, for ‘Tangible’ services the mean value of expectation among people (1.99) is
slightly less than the mean value of perception (2.195), whereas, their expectation value has
slightly less deviation (0.757) comparatively their perception (0.880). This sub hypothesis has
not been accepted as the basis for the study and Z value.
In case of ‘Reliability’ services in Ahmedabad, the mean value of expectation (2.206) among
people is slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ahmedabad people (2.422), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.8746) comparative to the value of perception
(1.0796). This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of
expectations and perceptions of Ahmedabad by peoples towards the ‘Reliability’ services of the
hospital.
In Ahmedabad, for ‘Responsiveness’ services the mean value of expectation among people
(2.2716) is slightly less than the mean value of perception ((2.5233), whereas their expectation
value has slightly less deviation (0.8770) comparatively their perception (1.002). This sub
hypothesis has not been accepted as the basis for the study and Z value.
In Ahmedabad, for ‘Assurance’ services the mean value of expectation among people (2.195) is
slightly less than the mean value of perception ((2.461), whereas, their expectation value has
slightly less deviation (0.9616) comparatively their perception (0.9309). This sub hypothesis has
not been accepted as the basis for the study and Z value.
In Ahmedabad, for ‘Empathy’ services the mean value of expectation among people (2.195) is
slightly less than the mean value of perception ((2.6066), whereas, their expectation value has
slightly less deviation (0.8803) comparatively their perception (1.054). This sub hypothesis has
not been accepted as the basis for the study and Z value.
Exhibit:2
TESTING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS AND
PERCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE OF UJJAIN TOWARDS SERVICE QUALITY OF THE
HOSPITALS

7. Sub
Hypot
heses
Parameters Expectations Perceptions Z-
Value
5%
Level
of
Signif
icanc
e
Results
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
H02.1 Tangibles 1.805 0.8669 2.0133 1.0222 1.904 1.96
Accept
ed
H02.2 Reliability 2.089 1.0093 2.1773 1.0318 0.747 1.96
Accept
ed
H02.3
Responsivene
ss 2.071 1.0416 2.2383 1.1196 1.335 1.96
Accept
ed
H02.4 Assurance 2.135 1.0670 2.1733 1.0352 0.316 1.96
Accept
ed
H02.5 Empathy 2.058 1.0624 2.2066 1.1124 1.178 1.96
Accept
ed
Testing the level of significance between the expectations and perceptions of people of Ujjain
towards service quality of the hospitals:
Exhibit: 2, shows that H02.1, H02.2, H02.3, H02.4 and H02.5 have been accepted.
Result shows that there is significant difference between the expectations and perceptions of
Ujjain people towards the service quality parameters viz. Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance and Empathy. Hence sub hypothesis H02.1, H02.2, H02.3, H02.4 and H02.5 have
been accepted. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of peoples of Ujjain towards
the service quality of hospitals. Results show that there is huge difference between the
expectation and perception of people.
In case of ‘Tangible’ services in Ujjain, the mean value of expectation (1.805) among people is
slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.013), whereas people in Ujjain
has slightly less deviation (0.866) comparative to the value of perception (1.022). This sub
hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of expectations and
perceptions of Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Tangible’ services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Reliability’ services in Ujjain, the mean value of expectation (2.089) among people
is slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.177), whereas people in
Ujjain has slightly less deviation (1.009) comparative to the value of perception (1.031). This
sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of expectations and
perceptions of Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Reliability’ services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Responsiveness’ services in Ujjain, the mean value of expectation (2.071) among
people is slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.238), whereas people
in Ujjain has slightly less deviation (1.041) comparative to the value of perception (1.119). This
sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of expectations and
perceptions of Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Responsiveness’ services of the hospital.

8. In case of ‘Assurance’ services in Ujjain, the mean value of expectation (2.135) among people
is slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.173),whereas people in
Ujjain has slightly less deviation (1.067) comparative to the value of perception (1.0352). This
sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of expectations and
perceptions of Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Assurance’ services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Empathy’ services in Ujjain, the mean value of expectation (2.058) among people is
slightly less than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.206), whereas people in Ujjain
has slightly less deviation (1.062) comparative to the value of perception (1.112). This sub
hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of expectations and
perceptions of Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Empathy’ services of the hospital.
Exhibit:3
TESTING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS
OF PEOPLE OFAHMEDABAD AND UJJAIN TOWARDS SERVICE QUALITY
OF THE HOSPITALS
Sub
Hypot
heses Parameters Expectations Expectations Z-
Value
5%
Level
of
Signific
ance
Results
Mean Std
Dev
Mean Std Dev
H03.1 Tangibles
1.9933 0.758 1.805 0.8669
3
2.003
1.96
Not
Accepted
H03.2 Reliability
2.2067 0.875 2.0893 1.0093
1
1.076
1.96 Accepted
H03.3
Responsivene
ss
2.2717 0.877 2.0717 1.0416
4
1.799
1.96 Accepted
H03.4 Assurance
2.195 0.83 2.135 1.0670
9
0.544
1.96 Accepted
H03.5 Empathy
2.3107 0.962 2.0587 1.0624
2
2.154
1.96 Accepted
Testing the level of significance between the expectations of people of Ahmedabad and Ujjain
towards service quality of the hospitals:
Exhibit: 3, shows that H03.2, H03.3, H03.4 and H03.5 have been accepted. H03.1 has not been
accepted.
Result shows that there is significant difference between the expectations of people of
Ahmedabad and Ujjain towards the service quality parameters viz. Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance and Empathy. Hence sub hypothesis H03.2, H03.3, H03.4 and H03.5 have been
accepted. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of peoples of Ahmedabad and Ujjain

9. towards the service quality of hospitals. Results show that there is huge difference between the
expectations of people, whereas H03.1 has not been accepted.
In case of ‘Tangible’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of expectation (1.993) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of the expectations of Ujjain people (1.805), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.758) comparative to the value of expectation
of Ujjain people (0.866). This sub hypothesis Z value has not been accepted as the basis for the
study in terms of the expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain people towards the ‘Tangible’
services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Reliability’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of expectation (2.2067) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of expectations of Ujjain peoples (2.0893), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.875) comparative to the value of expectation
of Ujjain peoples (1.00931). This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the
study in terms of expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the ‘Reliability’
services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Responsiveness’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of expectation (2.271)
among people is slightly high than the mean value of expectation of Ujjain people (2.071),
whereas people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.83) comparative to the value of
expectation of Ujjain peoples (1.067).This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis
for the study in terms of expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the
‘Responsiveness’ services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Assurance’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of expectation (2.195) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of expectation of Ujjain peoples (2.135), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.83) comparative to the value of expectation
of Ujjain peoples (1.067). This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the
study in terms of expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Assurance’
services of the hospital.
In case of ‘Empathy’ services, in Ahmedabad, the mean value of expectation (2.310) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of expectation of Ujjain peoples (2.058), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.962) comparative to the value of expectation
of Ujjain peoples (1.062). This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the
study in terms of expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the ‘Empathy’ services
of the hospital.
Exhibit:4
TESTING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE PERCEPTIONS OF
PEOPLE OF AHMEDABAD AND UJJAIN TOWARDS SERVICE QUALITY OF
THE HOSPITALS
Sub
Hypot
heses
Parameters Perceptions Perceptions Z-
Value
5%
Level
of
Signif
icanc
e
Results
Mean Std
Dev
Mean Std Dev

10. H04.1 Tangibles
2.195 0.8803 2.013
3
1.0222 1.649
1.96 Accepted
H04.2 Reliability
2.4227 1.0796
2
2.177
3
1.0318
1
2.012
1.96 Not Accepted
H04.3
Responsivene
ss
2.5233 1.0022
3
2.238
3
1.1196
5
2.323
1.96 Not Accepted
H04.4 Assurance
2.4617 0.9309
4
2.173
3
1.0352
5
2.536
1.96 Not Accepted
H04.5 Empathy
2.6067 1.0545
6
2.206
7
1.1124
8
3.196
1.96 Not Accepted
Testing the level of significance between the perceptions of peoples of Ahmedabad and Ujjain
towards service quality of the hospitals:
Exhibit: 4. shows that H04.1 has been accepted. H04.2, H04.3, H04.4 and H04.5 have not been
accepted.
Result shows that there is significant difference between the perceptions of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards the service quality parameter Tangible, so H04.1 has been accepted. There is not
any significant difference between the perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples in
Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy. Hence sub hypothesis H04.2, H04.3,
H04.4 and H04.5 have not been accepted. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of
peoples of Ahmedabad and Ujjain towards the service quality of hospitals. Results show that
there is huge difference between perceptions of people.
In case of ‘Tangible’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of perception (2.195) among people
is slightly high than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.0133), whereas people in
Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.880) comparative to the value of perception of Ujjain
peoples (1.031). This sub hypothesis Z value has been accepted as the basis for the study in terms
of the perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the ‘Tangible’ services of the
hospital.
In case of ‘Reliability’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of perception (2.422) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of perception of Ujjain peoples (2.177), whereas
people in Ahmedabad has slightly high deviation (1.079) comparative to the value of perception
of Ujjain (1.031). This sub hypothesis Z value has not been accepted as the basis for the study in
terms of perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the ‘Reliability’ services of the
hospital.
In case of ‘Responsiveness’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of expectation (2.523)
among people is slightly high than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.238),
whereas people in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (1.002) comparative to the value of
perception of Ujjain (1.119).This sub hypothesis Z value has not been accepted as the basis for
the study in terms of the perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the
‘Responsiveness’ services of the hospital.

11. In case of ‘Assurance’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of perception (2.461) among
people is slightly high than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.173), whereas people
in Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (0.930) comparative to the value of perception of
Ujjain (1.035). This sub hypothesis Z value has not been accepted as the basis for the study in
terms of perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain by peoples towards the ‘Assurance’ services of
the hospital.
In case of ‘Empathy’ services, in Ahmedabad the mean value of perception (2.606) among people
is slightly high than the mean value of perception of Ujjain people (2.206), whereas people in
Ahmedabad has slightly less deviation (1.054) comparative to the value of perception of Ujjain
(1.112). This sub hypothesis Z value has not been accepted as the basis for the study in terms of
perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples towards the ‘Empathy’ services of the hospital.
Findings, Conclusion and Suggestion
The main findings of the research
Place-wise Findings:
There is significant difference between the expectations and perceptions of Ahmedabad people
towards the service quality parameters viz. Tangible, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy.
The result differs in Reliability parameter. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction
of peoples of Ahmedabad towards the service quality of hospitals.
There is significant difference between the expectations and perceptions of Ujjain people
towards the service quality parameters viz. Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance
and Empathy. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of peoples of Ujjain towards
the service quality of hospitals.
There is significant difference between the expectations of Ahmedabad and Ujjain people
towards the service quality parameters viz. Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and
Empathy. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of peoples of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards the service quality of hospitals.
There is significant difference between the perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain towards the
Tangible service quality parameter. There is not any significant difference between the
perceptions of Ahmedabad and Ujjain peoples in Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and
Empathy. It also shows that there is a level of dissatisfaction of peoples of Ahmedabad and
Ujjain towards the service quality of hospitals.
Conclusion:
In order to understand the expectations of people of healthcare services a study was undertaken.
The study on service quality is based on primary data which are collected from Ahmedabad
and Ujjain. Various patients, attended and visitors were surveyed with the help of a structured
questionnaire. This study revealed the understanding of people towards service quality of
public and private hospitals in different parameters like physical appearance of hospital, their
staff, material associated with the service (such as reports etc), equipment used in treatment,
time of the different services or treatments, error free records, solving peoples problem and
showing concern for the patients and their attended. From this study hospital management
should know more about the needs and expectations of the peoples and kaizen their services.

12. Suggestion:
Service quality of any organization is very important for its image. The study revealed that to
improve patient perception, healthcare service providers must focus on quality improvement
strategies. Hospitals should publicize correct information from time to time as more quality
information leads to people alertness and satisfaction. The hospitals should have convenient
operating hours and nurses should give individual attention to patients especially in private
hospitals.
References:
1. Alamgir, Mohammed and Shamsuddoha, Mohammad (2004), “Service Quality
Dimensions: A Conceptual Analysis”, The Chittagong University Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 19.
2. Anand, Sandip and Sinha K.R. (2012), “Segmentation of Clients in India on the Basis of
Reproductive Health Welfare Index”, Connecting Business & Society, XIM,
Bhubaneswar, India.
3. Brahmbhatt, Mamta, Baser, Narayan, Joshi, Nisarg (2011), “Adapting the Servqual
Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical Investigation of Patients’ Perceptions of
Service Quality”, ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol.1
(8), pp 27-42.
4. Çaha, Havva (2007), “Service Quality in Private Hospitals in Turkey” Journal of
Economic and Social Research, Vol.9 (1), pp 55-69.
5. Comsats, Irfan, S.M. (2011), “Comparison of Service Quality between Private and
Public Hospitals: Empirical Evidences from Pakistan”, Journals of Quality and
Technology Management, Volume VII (I), pp 1- 22.
6. Costa, De Ayesha (2008), “Barriers of Mistrust: Public and Private Health Care
Provider in Madhya Pradesh, India”, Department of Public Health Sciences Karolinska
Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
7. Grøndahl, Abrahamsen, Vigdis (2012), “Patients’ Perceptions of Actual Care
Conditions and Patient Satisfaction with Care Quality in Hospital”, Dissertation,
Karlstad University Studies, Sweden.
8. Health Care Industry in India – Indian Brand Equity Foundation, www.ibef.org.
9. Itumalla, Ramaiah and Acharyulu, G. V. R. K (2011), “Patients’ Perceptions of
Outpatient Service Quality- A Case Study of a Private Hospital in South India”,
International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, Vol. 2 (6).
10. Jain, M., Nandan, D., Misra, S. K (2006), “Qualitative Assessment of Health Seeking
Behaviour and Perceptions Regarding Quality of Health Care Services among Rural
Community of District Agra”, Indian Journal of Community Medicine, Vol. 31(3).
11. Kavitha, R. (2012), “Service Quality Measurement in Health Care System- A Study in
Select Hospitals in Salem City, TamilNadu”, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management (IOSRJBM), Vol. 2(1), pp 37-43.
12. Kumar Chunduri, H K S (2011), “The Service Quality Gap Analysis: A Study on
Selected Hospitals in Hyderabad”, Department of Commerce & Business
Administration, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur, A.P, India.
13. Mququ, H. Mpumzi (2005), “A Survey of Customer Satisfaction, Expectations and
Perceptions as a Measure of Service Quality in Sanbs”, Rhodes University Investec
Business School, South Africa.

13. 14. Murthy, H.S. (2012), “A Study of Service Quality Management on Health Care
Industry in Bangalore”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM), Vol.
1(5), pp 37-44.
15. Narang, Ritu (2011), “Determining Quality of Public Health Care Services in Rural
India”, Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 16 (1), pp 35 – 49.
16. Narichiti, Victoria (2010), “Patient Centred Hospitals: A Study to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Health Care Delivery in the Three Selected Hospitals in Guntur
District, Andhra Pradesh, India”, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
17. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V., & Berry L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple- item
Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality” Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 64 (1), pp 12–40.
18. Padma, Panchapakesan, Rajendran Chandrasekharan, Lokachari Sai Prakash, (2010),
"Service Quality and Its Impact on Customer Satisfaction in Indian Hospitals:
Perspectives of Patients and Their Attendants", Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 (6), pp 807 – 841.
19. Natarajan, T. (2011), “Public Health Management-A Study of Reproductive & Child
Health Programme in Gujarat”, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India.
20. Rao, Dipankar, Krishna, Peters, H., David, Bandeen-Roche, Karen (2006), “Towards
Patient-Centred Health Services in India—A Scale to Measure Patient Perceptions of
Quality”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Volume 18 (6), pp 414–
421.
21. Samina Mufti, Qadri G.J., Tabish S.A., Mufti Samiya, Riyaz R. (2008), “Patient’s
Perception of Nursing Care at a Large Teaching Hospital in India”, International
Journal of Health Sciences, Vol. 2 (2), pp 92-100.
22. Shah, Utkarsh, Mohanty, Ragini, (2010), “Private Sector in Indian Healthcare Delivery:
Consumer Perspective and Government Policies to promote Private Sector”,
Information Management and Business Review, Vol.1 (2), pp. 79-87.
23. Sharma, K.and Narang, Ritu (2011), “Quality of Healthcare Services in Rural India:
The User Perspective”, VIKALPA, Volume1, (January-March), pp 51-60.
24. Singh, Rajinder (2010), “Patients’ Perception towards Government Hospitals in
Haryana”, VSRD Technical & Non-Technical Journal, Vol. I (4), pp 198 – 206.
25. Vashist Naresh, Jain Puneet (2013), “Private Sector in Indian Hospital Industry-A
Review”, International Journal of Transformations in Business Management, Vol. 2
(3), pp 24-35.