I do not think there is a fallacy here.
- If A (they do not blindfold me) then B (they intend to kill me).
- A (they did not blindfold me).
- [from 1. and 2.] B (they intend to kill me).
If both premises are true, then the conclusion is also necessarily true.
It can be perhaps argued that 1. is not true; there could be other reasons why kidnappers would not blindfold their victims. Sheer incompetence, or having some kind of power over the victim that will prevent the latter from seeking the police after the fact, come to mind. If so, not the full reasoning, but the major premise may be characterised as a black-and-white, or excluded middle, fallacy.
But if 1. is true (ie, the victim knows that the kidnappers are not incompetent, and cannot think of any reason why s/he won't immediately seek the police to get justice done), I can see no fallacy there.
So, barring any doubts of the kidnappers incompetence or the possibility of an ongoing blackmail after ransom and release, option (d), no fallacy.
(And, in practical life, if you are kidnapped and not blindfolded, yes, fear for your life, and attempt to escape whenever possible. Do not let concerns about the competence of your kidnappers or the possibility of blackmail stop you from trying.)