PREVIOUS YEAR SOLVED PAPERS - June 2019
67. Which of the following is the predecessor of the IRDA Act, 1999?
- Option : A
- Explanation : The Indian insurance industry is governed by Insurance Act, 1938, General Insurance Business Act, 1 972, Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1 956 and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999. General Insurance Industry is guided by all the above acts except the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which is specifically meant for Life business. Indian insurance industry has recently been opened up for private companies, both domestic and foreign. The opening of the insurance sector has been facilitated through IRDA.
The Government of India realized the necessities of setting-up Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) in 1999. The IRDA was set-up to provide for the establishment of an Authority, for protecting the interests of holders of insurance policies, to regulate, promote and insurer orderly growth of the insurance industry and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. With the birth of IRDA, the Government amended the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 for the sake of proper control at apex level.
Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority (IRDA) exercise the supervisory control or insurance companies and these powers flow from Insurance Act, 1983 as well as from IRDA Act, 1999. IRDA Act, 1999 states: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law for the time being in force, the Authority shall have the duty to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of insurance business and reinsurance business.”
Regulatory and supervisory powers of the authority are wide and pervasive.
- Option : A
- Explanation : The content theories implicitly assume that satisfaction leads to improved performance and that dissatisfaction detracts from performance. The Herzberg model is really a theory of job satisfaction, but still it does not deal with the relationship between satisfaction and performance. The Vroom model also largely avoids the relationship between satisfaction and performance. Although satisfaction make an input into Vroom’s concept of valence and although the outcomes have performance implications, it was not until Porter and Lawler refined and extended Vroom’s model that the relationship between satisfaction and performance was dealt with directly by a motivation model. Porter and Lawler start with the premise that motivation (effort or force) does not equal satisfaction or performance. Motivation, satisfaction, and performance are all separate variables and relate in ways different from what was traditionally assumed. Figure depicts the multivariable model used to explain the complex relationship that exists between motivation, performance, and satisfaction. It is important, however, that Porter and Lawler point out that effort (force or motivation) does not lead directly to performance. It is dedicated by abilities and traits and by role perceptions. More important in the Porter- Lawler is a significant turn of events from traditional thinking that performance leads to satisfaction.
The model has had a fair degree of research support over the years. For example, a recent field study found that effort level and direction of effort are important in explaining individual performance or reward in the relationship between performance and satisfaction. Specially, it was concluded that performance and satisfaction will be more strongly related when rewards are made contingent upon performance than when they are not.
70. Match List-I with List-II:
| List-I (Trade and Finance Institution) | List-II (Headquarters) |
| (a) WTO | (i) Brussels |
| (b) IMF | (ii) Geneva |
| (c) FAO | (iii) Washington |
| (d) EU | (iv) Rome |
Codes
| (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | |
| 1 | (ii) | (iii) | (iv) | (i) |
| 2 | (i) | (ii) | (iii) | (iv) |
| 3 | (iii) | (ii) | (i) | (iv) |
| 4 | (i) | (iii) | (ii) | (iv) |
